Contribution of Saudi Neurosurgeons to the International Neurosurgical Literature: a Bibliometric Analysis of Trends Over the Last Three Decades

This review is a bibliometric analysis of the contribution of neurosurgeons from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to the international neurosurgical literature over the last three decades. The study aimed at determining changes in publication trends over time and assessing the impact of these changes on citation numbers. All publications in the PubMed-indexed neurosurgical journals that were authored by at least one Saudi neurosurgeon were selected. The articles were divided into two study groups according to publication year whether during the last decade (2011- 2020) or the previous two decades (1991- 2010). Changes in publication trends were determined by comparing the bibliometric characteristics of the articles in both groups. The impact of the changes on citation numbers was assessed by correlating the annual citation rates for the articles with their bibliometric qualities. A total of 352 publications were suitable for the review (200 articles published during 2011- 2020, and 152 during 1991- 2010). Temporal changes in the publishing journals and first authors’ centres and regions were observed. The articles that were published in the last decade were associated with a significantly higher annual publication rate, a greater number of authors, centres, and countries, and a larger sample size compared to those published in the previous two decades. They also had a lower percentage of Saudi total and first authorship as well as a smaller proportion of case reports. The annual citation rate was significantly impacted by the duration from publication, sample size, and study type during both study periods. However, only during the last decade, the annual citation rate was positively influenced by the journal’s impact factor, number of authors, centres, countries, and percentage of Saudi authorship. We conclude that KSA neurosurgeons’ contribution to international neurosurgical journals had increased considerably over the last decade. The publications were authored by neurosurgeons from a wider range of centres and regions than in the past. A bigger portion of publications had become more multi-authored, multi-centred, and multi-national as well as reported larger sample sizes and lesser rates of case reports. The changes in publication trends correlated positively with the articles’ annual citation rates. The findings could be considered encouraging

Performance of Commercially Available Rapid Serological Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), continues to spread globally. Although several rapid commercial serological assays have been developed, little is known about their performance and accuracy in detecting SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in COVID-19 patient samples. Here, we have evaluated the performance of seven commercially available rapid lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) obtained from different manufacturers, and compared them to in-house developed and validated ELISA assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG antibodies in RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients. While all evaluated LFIA assays showed high specificity, our data showed a significant variation in sensitivity of these assays, which ranged from 0% to 54% for samples collected early during infection (3–7 days post symptoms onset) and from 54% to 88% for samples collected at later time points during infection (8–27 days post symptoms onset). Therefore, we recommend prior evaluation and validation of these assays before being routinely used to detect IgM and IgG in COVID-19 patients. Moreover, our findings suggest the use of LFIA assays in combination with other standard methods, and not as an alternative