Cargando…

Assessing Clinical Embryology Research: A Global Bibliometric Analysis

Background and Objectives: The evaluative strength of available bibliometric tools in the field of clinical embryology has never been examined in the literature. The aim is to bring insight regarding the identity of clinical embryology research, introducing concerns when solely relying on the method...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Simopoulou, Mara, Sfakianoudis, Konstantinos, Maziotis, Evangelos, Rapani, Anna, Giannelou, Polina, Pantou, Agni, Anifandis, George, Bakas, Panagiotis, Vlahos, Nikolaos, Pantos, Konstantinos, Koutsilieris, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7279470/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32357468
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina56050210
_version_ 1783543569851613184
author Simopoulou, Mara
Sfakianoudis, Konstantinos
Maziotis, Evangelos
Rapani, Anna
Giannelou, Polina
Pantou, Agni
Anifandis, George
Bakas, Panagiotis
Vlahos, Nikolaos
Pantos, Konstantinos
Koutsilieris, Michael
author_facet Simopoulou, Mara
Sfakianoudis, Konstantinos
Maziotis, Evangelos
Rapani, Anna
Giannelou, Polina
Pantou, Agni
Anifandis, George
Bakas, Panagiotis
Vlahos, Nikolaos
Pantos, Konstantinos
Koutsilieris, Michael
author_sort Simopoulou, Mara
collection PubMed
description Background and Objectives: The evaluative strength of available bibliometric tools in the field of clinical embryology has never been examined in the literature. The aim is to bring insight regarding the identity of clinical embryology research, introducing concerns when solely relying on the methodology of bibliometric analysis. Materials and Methods: An all-inclusive analysis of the most bibliometrically highlighted scientific contributions regarding the cornerstones of clinical embryology was performed employing the Scopus, Web of Science (WoS) and PubMed databases, between 1978–2018. An analysis of the number of publications, respective citations and h-index, g-index, along with m-quotient is presented. The top 30 contributing authors for each distinctive area of research are listed. An attempt at visualizing the yearly published articles, clusters, and collaborations of authors, along with the geographic origin of publications, is also presented. Results: Combining all searches and keywords yielded 54,522 results. In the Scopus database, employing the keyword “In Vitro Fertilization” yielded 41,292 results. The publications of the top five authors in each research field were analytically presented and compared to the total number of publications for each respective field. The research field of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis/Screening/Testing was allocated the highest percentage of publications produced by the top five authors. Regarding journal bibliometrics, based on the year 2017 metrics, there are only 29 journals according to WoS that refer to “Reproductive Biology”, ranking it 187th among 235 disciplines. The USA produced the highest number of publications (12,537). Conclusion: Results indicate an explosion of interest published in the literature regarding the field of clinical embryology. Further analysis on collaborations and the trends involved should be of added value as productivity between countries varies significantly. This may guide researchers, in vitro fertilization professionals, and prospective authors during literature search, while proving useful regarding manuscript design and concurring on keywords and abstract content.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7279470
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72794702020-06-17 Assessing Clinical Embryology Research: A Global Bibliometric Analysis Simopoulou, Mara Sfakianoudis, Konstantinos Maziotis, Evangelos Rapani, Anna Giannelou, Polina Pantou, Agni Anifandis, George Bakas, Panagiotis Vlahos, Nikolaos Pantos, Konstantinos Koutsilieris, Michael Medicina (Kaunas) Article Background and Objectives: The evaluative strength of available bibliometric tools in the field of clinical embryology has never been examined in the literature. The aim is to bring insight regarding the identity of clinical embryology research, introducing concerns when solely relying on the methodology of bibliometric analysis. Materials and Methods: An all-inclusive analysis of the most bibliometrically highlighted scientific contributions regarding the cornerstones of clinical embryology was performed employing the Scopus, Web of Science (WoS) and PubMed databases, between 1978–2018. An analysis of the number of publications, respective citations and h-index, g-index, along with m-quotient is presented. The top 30 contributing authors for each distinctive area of research are listed. An attempt at visualizing the yearly published articles, clusters, and collaborations of authors, along with the geographic origin of publications, is also presented. Results: Combining all searches and keywords yielded 54,522 results. In the Scopus database, employing the keyword “In Vitro Fertilization” yielded 41,292 results. The publications of the top five authors in each research field were analytically presented and compared to the total number of publications for each respective field. The research field of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis/Screening/Testing was allocated the highest percentage of publications produced by the top five authors. Regarding journal bibliometrics, based on the year 2017 metrics, there are only 29 journals according to WoS that refer to “Reproductive Biology”, ranking it 187th among 235 disciplines. The USA produced the highest number of publications (12,537). Conclusion: Results indicate an explosion of interest published in the literature regarding the field of clinical embryology. Further analysis on collaborations and the trends involved should be of added value as productivity between countries varies significantly. This may guide researchers, in vitro fertilization professionals, and prospective authors during literature search, while proving useful regarding manuscript design and concurring on keywords and abstract content. MDPI 2020-04-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7279470/ /pubmed/32357468 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina56050210 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Simopoulou, Mara
Sfakianoudis, Konstantinos
Maziotis, Evangelos
Rapani, Anna
Giannelou, Polina
Pantou, Agni
Anifandis, George
Bakas, Panagiotis
Vlahos, Nikolaos
Pantos, Konstantinos
Koutsilieris, Michael
Assessing Clinical Embryology Research: A Global Bibliometric Analysis
title Assessing Clinical Embryology Research: A Global Bibliometric Analysis
title_full Assessing Clinical Embryology Research: A Global Bibliometric Analysis
title_fullStr Assessing Clinical Embryology Research: A Global Bibliometric Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Assessing Clinical Embryology Research: A Global Bibliometric Analysis
title_short Assessing Clinical Embryology Research: A Global Bibliometric Analysis
title_sort assessing clinical embryology research: a global bibliometric analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7279470/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32357468
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina56050210
work_keys_str_mv AT simopouloumara assessingclinicalembryologyresearchaglobalbibliometricanalysis
AT sfakianoudiskonstantinos assessingclinicalembryologyresearchaglobalbibliometricanalysis
AT maziotisevangelos assessingclinicalembryologyresearchaglobalbibliometricanalysis
AT rapanianna assessingclinicalembryologyresearchaglobalbibliometricanalysis
AT gianneloupolina assessingclinicalembryologyresearchaglobalbibliometricanalysis
AT pantouagni assessingclinicalembryologyresearchaglobalbibliometricanalysis
AT anifandisgeorge assessingclinicalembryologyresearchaglobalbibliometricanalysis
AT bakaspanagiotis assessingclinicalembryologyresearchaglobalbibliometricanalysis
AT vlahosnikolaos assessingclinicalembryologyresearchaglobalbibliometricanalysis
AT pantoskonstantinos assessingclinicalembryologyresearchaglobalbibliometricanalysis
AT koutsilierismichael assessingclinicalembryologyresearchaglobalbibliometricanalysis