Cargando…

A Bibliometric Analysis of Robotic Surgery From 2001 to 2021

INTRODUCTION: Bibliometric analyses are a method of evaluating the quality of research output in a certain domain. Robotic surgery has made vast leaps during the past 20 years and this paper aimed to assess some of the main areas of research using this method. METHODS: A search was undertaken for do...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Musbahi, A., Rao, C. B., Immanuel, A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9054892/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35258666
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-022-06492-2
_version_ 1784697293949108224
author Musbahi, A.
Rao, C. B.
Immanuel, A.
author_facet Musbahi, A.
Rao, C. B.
Immanuel, A.
author_sort Musbahi, A.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Bibliometric analyses are a method of evaluating the quality of research output in a certain domain. Robotic surgery has made vast leaps during the past 20 years and this paper aimed to assess some of the main areas of research using this method. METHODS: A search was undertaken for documents published between 2001 and 2021 from the World of Science database, using the keywords ‘robotic surgery’, ‘robotic assisted surgery’ and ‘robotic-assisted surgery. Results were compared using numerous bibliometric methodologies, and stratified by source-specific metrics, author-specific metrics and country-specific metrics. RESULTS: The search yielded 3839 documents, from 879 different sources. Only 2% of sources were found to be within Bradford’s Zone 1 of research and the most relevant sources were from the field of urology. The Journal of Urology and Surgical Endoscopy and other Techniques ranked highly among metrics such as H, G, M index and total citations. The top-rated authors had a H index of 15 in the field of robotic surgery and the total citations reached a peak at 1342. The USA, Japan and Italy were the most productive nations and increased collaborative research is leading to a greater number of multiple-centre publications. CONCLUSION: Research into robotic surgery is still in its infancy with further reviews of the literature and greater output through large randomised controlled trials in multiple centres through collaborative research needed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9054892
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90548922022-05-07 A Bibliometric Analysis of Robotic Surgery From 2001 to 2021 Musbahi, A. Rao, C. B. Immanuel, A. World J Surg Scientific Review INTRODUCTION: Bibliometric analyses are a method of evaluating the quality of research output in a certain domain. Robotic surgery has made vast leaps during the past 20 years and this paper aimed to assess some of the main areas of research using this method. METHODS: A search was undertaken for documents published between 2001 and 2021 from the World of Science database, using the keywords ‘robotic surgery’, ‘robotic assisted surgery’ and ‘robotic-assisted surgery. Results were compared using numerous bibliometric methodologies, and stratified by source-specific metrics, author-specific metrics and country-specific metrics. RESULTS: The search yielded 3839 documents, from 879 different sources. Only 2% of sources were found to be within Bradford’s Zone 1 of research and the most relevant sources were from the field of urology. The Journal of Urology and Surgical Endoscopy and other Techniques ranked highly among metrics such as H, G, M index and total citations. The top-rated authors had a H index of 15 in the field of robotic surgery and the total citations reached a peak at 1342. The USA, Japan and Italy were the most productive nations and increased collaborative research is leading to a greater number of multiple-centre publications. CONCLUSION: Research into robotic surgery is still in its infancy with further reviews of the literature and greater output through large randomised controlled trials in multiple centres through collaborative research needed. Springer International Publishing 2022-03-08 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9054892/ /pubmed/35258666 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-022-06492-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Scientific Review
Musbahi, A.
Rao, C. B.
Immanuel, A.
A Bibliometric Analysis of Robotic Surgery From 2001 to 2021
title A Bibliometric Analysis of Robotic Surgery From 2001 to 2021
title_full A Bibliometric Analysis of Robotic Surgery From 2001 to 2021
title_fullStr A Bibliometric Analysis of Robotic Surgery From 2001 to 2021
title_full_unstemmed A Bibliometric Analysis of Robotic Surgery From 2001 to 2021
title_short A Bibliometric Analysis of Robotic Surgery From 2001 to 2021
title_sort bibliometric analysis of robotic surgery from 2001 to 2021
topic Scientific Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9054892/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35258666
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-022-06492-2
work_keys_str_mv AT musbahia abibliometricanalysisofroboticsurgeryfrom2001to2021
AT raocb abibliometricanalysisofroboticsurgeryfrom2001to2021
AT immanuela abibliometricanalysisofroboticsurgeryfrom2001to2021
AT musbahia bibliometricanalysisofroboticsurgeryfrom2001to2021
AT raocb bibliometricanalysisofroboticsurgeryfrom2001to2021
AT immanuela bibliometricanalysisofroboticsurgeryfrom2001to2021