Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27489154›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications in transplantation journals from Mainland China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan between 2006 and 2015.

Qiang-Hong Pu, Qiu-Ju Lyu, Huai-Yu Su

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Qiang-Hong PuPeople's Hospital of Leshan, Leshan, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0003-0670-2700
Qiu-Ju LyuPeople's Hospital of Leshan, Leshan, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.
Huai-Yu SuPeople's Hospital of Leshan, Leshan, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study is to compare the quantity and quality of scientific publications in transplantation fields that were written by researchers from Mainland China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan in the East Asia region. SETTINGS: East Asia. PARTICIPANTS AND OUTCOME MEASURES: Articles except editorials, conference abstracts, letters, news and corrections published in 25 transplantation journals from 2006 to 2015 were screened with the Web of Science database. The number of total and annual articles, article types (study design and transplantation site), impact factor, citations and articles in the high-impact journals was determined to assess the quantity and quality of transplantation research from East Asia. The correlation of socioeconomic factors and annual publications was also analysed.

resultsFrom 2006 to 2015, there were 47 141 articles published in transplantation journals, of which researchers from Japan published 3694 articles, followed by Mainland China, South Korea and Taiwan with 2778, 1643 and 951 articles, respectively. Similar trends were observed in accumulated impact factor, accumulated citations, articles in the high-impact journals and articles on transplantation site. Publications from Japan had the highest average impact factor and citation, while those from Mainland China had the lowest. Additionally, in terms of study design, authors from Mainland China contributed to most clinical trials and randomised controlled trials, but authors from Japan contributed to most case reports. The annual numbers of articles from Mainland China and South Korea increased linearly (p<0.05), but those from Japan and Taiwan remained stable for the period studied. The annual numbers of articles from Mainland China and South Korea were positively correlated with gross domestic product (p<0.05).

conclusionsTransplantation research productivity in East Asia is highly skewed, with gross domestic product having a significant positive correlation. Mainland China still lags far behind Japan in most bibliometric indicators; thus, there is vast room for improvement.

Indexed as

BibliometricsTransplantationChinaHumansJapanJournal Impact FactorPeriodicals as TopicRepublic of KoreaSocioeconomic FactorsTaiwanbibliometricsEast AsiatransplantationWeb of Science

Identifiers

PMID27489154
PMCPMC4985842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.