Global research characteristics and trends of infection after spinal implant surgery: a bibliometric analysis

Background: With the growing awareness of postoperative infection, increasing focus has been placed on infection after spinal implant surgery (IASIS). This study aimed to explore the development and trends of research regarding IASIS using bibliometric analysis. Methods: Scientific articles on IASIS research published between February 1, 2000, and December 31, 2020 were retrieved from the Web of Science database. Results: A total of 820 publications were included in the bibliometric analysis, with studies originating from 46 countries and 6 languages. Researchers from the United States published the highest number of articles and collaborated closely with researchers in Canada, Germany, and Japan. The author with the most publications was Alexander R. Vaccaro. The journal with the most articles and citations was Spine. Most of the research was performed on risk factors and the incidence of IASIS. Co-occurrence analysis revealed that the most recent research trend was likely related to the management of IASIS and the international consensus meeting. Three clusters of research were identified through a thematic map: diagnosis and treatment of IASIS, scoliosis-related infection, and risk factors and prevention of IASIS. Conclusions: Research on IASIS increasingly grew between 2000 and 2020. Spinal surgeons and institutes from the United States had the highest number of publications and academic impact in this field. Diagnosisrelated problems and multidisciplinary work on IASIS require further attention in the future. Current trends in IASIS are likely associated with IASIS management and the international consensus meeting

Detection and characterization of translational research in cancer and cardiovascular medicine

Background Scientists and experts in science policy have become increasingly interested in strengthening translational research. Efforts to understand the nature of translational research and monitor policy interventions face an obstacle: how can translational research be defined in order to facilitate analysis of it? We describe methods of scientometric analysis that can do this. Methods We downloaded bibliographic and citation data from all articles published in 2009 in the 75 leading journals in cancer and in cardiovascular medicine (roughly 15,000 articles for each field). We calculated citation relationships between journals and between articles and we extracted the most prevalent natural language concepts. Results Network analysis and mapping revealed polarization between basic and clinical research, but with translational links between these poles. The structure of the translational research in cancer and cardiac medicine is, however, quite different. In the cancer literature the translational interface is composed of different techniques (e.g., gene expression analysis) that are used across the various subspecialties (e.g., specific tumor types) within cancer research and medicine. In the cardiac literature, the clinical problems are more disparate (i.e., from congenital anomalies to coronary artery disease); although no distinctive translational interface links these fields, translational research does occur in certain subdomains, especially in research on atherosclerosis and hypertension. Conclusions These techniques can be used to monitor the continuing evolution of translational research in medicine and the impact of interventions designed to enhance it.Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF Investigator Award in Health Policy Research)Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la société et la culture (FQRSC SE-124896)Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP-93553)National Science Foundation (U.S.) (SBE-0965259

Implementation research for the prevention of antimicrobial resistance and healthcare-associated infections; 2017 Geneva infection prevention and control (IPC)-think tank (part 1)

Background Around 5–15% of all hospital patients worldwide suffer from healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), and years of excessive antimicrobial use in human and animal medicine have created emerging antimicrobial resistance (AMR). A considerable amount of evidence-based measures have been published to address these challenges, but the largest challenge seems to be their implementation. Methods In June 2017, a total of 42 experts convened at the Geneva IPC-Think Tank to discuss four domains in implementation science: 1) teaching implementation skills; 2) fostering implementation of IPC and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) by policy making; 3) national/international actions to foster implementation skills; and 4) translational research bridging social sciences and clinical research in infection prevention and control (IPC) and AMR. Results Although neglected in the past, implementation skills have become a priority in IPC and AMS. They should now be part of any curriculum in health care, and IPC career paths should be created. Guidelines and policies should be aligned with each other and evidence-based, each document providing a section on implementing elements of IPC and AMS in patient care. International organisations should be advocates for IPC and AMS, framing them as patient safety issues and emphasizing the importance of implementation skills. Healthcare authorities at the national level should adopt a similar approach and provide legal frameworks, guidelines, and resources to allow better implementation of patient safety measures in IPC and AMS. Rather than repeating effectiveness studies in every setting, we should invest in methods to improve the implementation of evidence-based measures in different healthcare contexts. For this, we need to encourage and financially support collaborations between social sciences and clinical IPC research. Conclusions Experts of the 2017 Geneva Think Tank on IPC and AMS, CDC, and WHO agreed that sustained efforts on implementation of IPC and AMS strategies are required at international, country, and hospital management levels, to provide an adequate multimodal framework that addresses (not exclusively) leadership, resources, education and training for implementing IPC and AMS. Future strategies can build on this agreement to make strategies on IPC and AMS more effective

The Changing Landscape of Neuroscience Research, 2006–2015: A Bibliometric Study

published_or_final_versio

Using publication metrics to highlight academic productivity and research impact

This article provides a broad overview of widely available measures of academic productivity and impact using publication data and highlights uses of these metrics for various purposes. Metrics based on publication data include measures such as number of publications, number of citations, the journal impact factor score, and the h-index, as well as emerging metrics based on document-level metrics. Publication metrics can be used for a variety of purposes for tenure and promotion, grant applications and renewal reports, benchmarking, recruiting efforts, and administrative purposes for departmental or university performance reports. The authors also highlight practical applications of measuring and reporting academic productivity and impact to emphasize and promote individual investigators, grant applications, or department output