Bibliometric analysis of the literature on von Willebrand disease: Research status and trends

Main Article Content

Nada Jaber Aldossary https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2058-474X
Ahmed Mustafa Rashid https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6394-1540
Abu Waris https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4465-2903
Nadeem Siddique https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1769-7997
Muhammad Ajmal Khan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0069-6311
Syed Sarmad Javaid https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9304-7200
Omar I. Al-Rubaish https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9934-5399
Shamim Shaikh Mohiuddin https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1007-1534
Savita Lasrado https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9261-9238
Ritesh G. Menezes https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2135-4161

Keywords

Abstract

Background and aim: Von Willebrand disease (VWD) is considered the most prevalent inherited bleeding disorder. The current study aims to demonstrate the research status and trends on VWD worldwide. Methods: Bibliometric analysis was used to investigate the global research productivity and trends on VWD. The publications on VWD from 1956 to 2021 were extracted using the Web of Science database. In the VWD domain, a total of 3,643 records were analyzed for authorship and collaboration patterns, yearly productivity, highly cited documents, relevant source of publication, most prolific scholars, productive countries, and organizations. Results: The most productive journal, author, organization, and country were 'Haemophilia' with 439 publications, 'Favaloro EJ' with 119 publications, the 'University of Milan' with 192 publications, and the United States of America (USA) with 1,048 publications, respectively. The document with the highest citations was 'Srivastava A, 2013, Haemophilia,' which received 1,154 citations in total. In 2016, the highest number of publications shared by two author patterns was 28. With 199 publications, the year 2021 remained on the top, while the citation-wise analysis identified 2006 as the top year with 5,379 citations. Conclusions: Research productivity and publication trends on VWD revealed that the USA emerged as the most significant contributing country. The 'University of Milan' was the most significant contributing organization, while ‘Favaloro EJ’ was the most significant author. 'Hemophilia' was found to be the most significant journal in the field of VWD. It is recommended that researchers from countries with significant contributions to the field should collaborate with researchers from Asian countries and other countries that lack behind in research in the domain of VWD.(www.actabiomedica.it)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...
Abstract 784 | PDF Downloads 381

References


1. Maas DP, Atiq F, Blijlevens NM, et al. Von Willebrand disease type 2M: correlation between genotype and phenotype. J Thromb Haemost. 2022;20:316-327. doi: 10.1111/jth.15586.
2. Fogarty H, Doherty D, O'Donnell JS. New developments in von Willebrand disease. Br J Haematol. 2020;191:329-339. doi: 10.1111/bjh.16681.
3. Chen YC, Chao TY, Cheng SN, Hu SH, Liu JY. Prevalence of von Willebrand disease in women with iron deficiency anaemia and menorrhagia in Taiwan. Haemophilia. 2008;14:768-774. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2008.01777.x.
4. Favaloro EJ. Classification of von Willebrand disease in the context of modern contemporary von Willebrand factor testing methodologies. Res Pract Thromb and Haemost. 2020;4:952-957. doi: 10.1002/rth2.12392.
5. Sadler JE, Budde U, Eikenboom JC, et al. Update on the pathophysiology and classification of von Willebrand disease: a report of the Subcommittee on von Willebrand Factor. J Thromb Haemost. 2006;4:2103-2114. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2006.02146.x.
6. Leebeek FW, Susen S. Von Willebrand disease: clinical conundrums. Haemophilia. 2018;24:37-43. doi: 10.1111/hae.13508.
7. Ellegaard O, Wallin JA. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: how great is the impact? Scientometrics. 2015;105:1809-1831. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z.
8. Bradshaw CJ, Brook BW. How to rank journals. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0149852. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149852.
9. Moed HF. The impact-factors debate: the ISI's uses and limits. Nature. 2002;415:731-732. doi: 10.1038/415731a.
10. Birkle C, Pendlebury DA, Schnell J, Adams J. Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quant Sci Stud. 2020;1:363-376. doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00018.
11. Pranckute R. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: the titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications (Basel). 2021;9:12. doi: 10.3390/publications9010012.
12. Sevinc A. Web of Science: a unique method of cited reference searching. J Natl Med Assoc. 2004;96:980-983.
13. Khan MS, Usman MS, Fatima K, et al. Characteristics of highly cited articles in interventional cardiology. Am J Cardiol. 2017;120:2100-2109. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.08.030.
14. Liu YH, Wang SQ, Xue JH, et al. Hundred top-cited articles focusing on acute kidney injury: a bibliometric analysis. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e011630. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011630.
15. Usman MS, Siddiqi TJ, Khan MS, et al. A scientific analysis of the 100 citation classics of valvular heart disease. Am J Cardiol. 2017;120:1440-1449. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.07.035.
16. Liskiewicz T, Liskiewicz G, Paczesny J. Factors affecting the citations of papers in tribology journals. Scientometrics. 2021;126:3321-3336. doi: 10.1007/s11192-021-03870-w.
17. Hong JH, Yoon DY, Lim KJ, et al. Characteristics of the most cited, most downloaded, and most mentioned articles in general medical journals: a comparative bibliometric analysis. Healthcare (Basel). 2020;8:492. doi: 10.3390/healthcare8040492.
18. Menezes RG, Usman MS, Memon MM, Siddiqi TJ, Madadin M. Landmark publications on sudden infant death syndrome: a bibliometric analysis. Forensic Sci Rev. 2020;32:117-127.
19. KimY, Yoon DY, Kim JE, et al. Citation classics in stroke: the top-100 cited articles on hemorrhagic stroke. Eur Neurol. 2017;78:210-216. doi: 10.1159/000479626.
20. Yao RQ, Ren C, Wang JN, et al. Publication trends of research on sepsis and host immune response during 1999-2019: a 20-year bibliometric analysis. Int J Biol Sci. 2020;16:27-37. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.37496.
21. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22:338-342. doi: 10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF.
22. Lefaivre KA, Shadgan B, O’Brien PJ. 100 most cited articles in orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:1487-1497. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1604-1.
23. Paladugu R, Schein M, Gardezi S, Wise L. One hundred citation classics in general surgical journals. World J Surg. 2002;26:1099-1105. doi: 10.1007/s00268-002-6376-7.
24. Zhou W, Kou A, Chen J, Ding B. A retrospective analysis with bibliometric of energy security in 2000–2017. Energy Rep. 2108;4:724-732. doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2018.10.012.
25. Chen YC, Yang L, Cheng SN, Hu SH, Chao TY. von Willebrand disease: a clinical and laboratory study of sixty-five patients. Ann Hematol. 2011;90:1183-1190. doi: 10.1007/s00277-011-1266-4.
26. Al-Rahal NK. Inherited bleeding disorders in Iraq and consanguineous marriage. Int J Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Res. 2018;12:273-281.
27. Kumar S, Kishore R, Gupta V, Jain M, Shukla J. Prevalence and spectrum of von Willebrand disease in Eastern Uttar Pradesh. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2010;53:486-489. doi: 10.4103/0377-4929.68287.
28. Lillicrap D, James P. von Willebrand disease: an introduction for the primary care physician. Montreal: World Federation of Hemophilia; 2009. p. 1-7.
29. Trasi S, Shetty S, Ghosh K, Mohanty D. Prevalence and spectrum of von Willebrand disease from western India. Indian J Med Res. 2005;121:653-658.
30. Federici AB, Mannucci PM. Diagnosis and management of von Willebrand disease. Haemophilia. 1999;5:28-37. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2516.1999.0050s2028.x.
31. Nash-Stewart CE, Kruesi LM, Del Mar CB. Does Bradford's law of scattering predict the size of the literature in Cochrane reviews? J Med Libr Assoc. 2012;100:135-138. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.100.2.013.
32. Madadin M, Siddique N, Waris A, et al. Research trends in forensic anthropology: a bibliometric analysis. J Forensic Leg Med. 2022;86:102305. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2022.102305.
33. Li W, Aste T, Caccioli F, Livan G. Early coauthorship with top scientists predicts success in academic careers. Nat Commun. 2019;10:5170. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13130-4.
34. Stossel TP. Volume: papers and academic promotion. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:146-149. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-106-1-146.
35. Nicholson JM, Ioannidis JP. Research grants: conform and be funded. Nature. 2012;492:34-36. doi: 10.1038/492034a.
36. Kelly CD, Jennions MD. The h index and career assessment by numbers. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006;21:167-170. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.01.005.
37. Dash M. Three pillars of a biomedical research article: the title, abstract and keywords. J Health Spec. 2016;4:186-189. doi: 10.4103/2468-6360.186488.

Most read articles by the same author(s)