Objective: This study examined research productivity of NSAIDs in Malaysia.
Materials and Methods: This bibliometric study included all published research articles on NSAIDs from 1979 to 2018, which were conducted in Malaysia. The search databases such as Google Scholar, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus were used. Search terms included NSAIDs and specific drug names such as ibuprofen, celecoxib, and naproxen. Growth of publication, authorship pattern, citation analysis, journal index, type of studies, and geographical distribution of institutions publishing articles on NSAIDs were measured.
Results: Overall, 111 articles were retrieved from 1979 to 2018. The annual productivity of articles throughout the study fluctuated in which the highest productivity was in 2018, 12.61% (n = 14). Majority of articles were multiple authored, 99.10% (n = 109), and University of Science Malaysia (USM) produced the highest number of articles (30 articles). Most of the articles were International Scientific Indexing-indexed, 52.25% (n = 58), and the main issue studied in most of the articles was the drug formulation of NSAIDs.
Conclusion: The growth of NSAID research in Malaysia was slow, and the majority of research involved laboratory studies. Clinical studies evaluating the clinical outcomes of NSAIDs in patients, particularly using large healthcare databases are still lacking.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to provide general information on the trends of the studies on JE as well as an overall perspective on the development of this topic by utilising a bibliometric analytic approach.
METHOD: A bibliometric evaluation was conducted in the JE field since the first publication was documented in the Scopus database. The information retrieved examines 1572 JE papers from a variety of perspectives, including citation and publishing metrics.
RESULTS: The research results pinpoint the most productive countries, universities, journals, authors, and JE articles. The study also classified the most important themes and offered some recommendations for further research.
CONCLUSION: The study provided a snapshot of JE patterns and trajectories from 1993 to 2020, which can help academics and practitioners figure out the pattern and direction of future research. To the best of our knowledge, no other study examines the bibliographic data on JE and thus this work is one of the first contributions to the literature.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to use data systematically extracted from multiple sources (ie, grant, publication, and patent databases) to investigate the development, research, and fund application of health-related CIs and associated stakeholders (ie, countries, organizations, and collaborators).
METHODS: A multifaceted search query was executed to retrieve records from 9 databases. Bibliometric analysis, social network analysis, and term co-occurrence analysis were conducted on the screened records.
RESULTS: This review included 42 funded projects, 428 research publications, and 162 patents. The total dollar amount of grants awarded was US $30,297,932, of which US $13,513,473 was awarded by US funding agencies and US $16,784,459 was funded by the Europe Commission. The top 3 funding agencies in the United States were the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Boston Medical Center was awarded the largest combined grant size (US $2,246,437) for 4 projects. The authors of the publications were from 58 countries and 566 organizations; the top 3 most productive organizations were Northeastern University (United States), Universiti Teknologi MARA (Malaysia), and the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS; France). US researchers produced 114 publications. Although 82.0% (464/566) of the organizations engaged in interorganizational collaboration, 2 organizational research-collaboration clusters were observed with Northeastern University and CNRS as the central nodes. About 112 organizations from the United States and China filed 87.7% patents. IBM filed most patents (N=17). Only 5 patents were co-owned by different organizations, and there was no across-country collaboration on patenting activity. The terms patient, child, elderly, and robot were frequently discussed in the 3 record types. The terms related to mental and chronic issues were discussed mainly in grants and publications. The terms regarding multimodal interactions were widely mentioned as users' communication modes with CIs in the identified records.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provided an overview of the countries, organizations, and topic terms in funded projects, as well as the authorship, collaboration, content, and related information of research publications and patents. There is a lack of broad cross-sector partnerships among grant agencies, academia, and industry, particularly in the United States. Our results suggest a need to improve collaboration among public and private sectors and health care organizations in research and patent activities.
METHODS: The Malaysian Medical Repository (MyMedR), a web-based database of Malaysian health and medical publications, and Scopus were searched to retrieve rheumatological publications from Malaysia, for the period 1950 until 30 June 2019. The type and number of publications in each rheumatological subject area and the overall trend of publication numbers and citations were analysed.
RESULTS: 547 publications were found for the time period studied. There was a 27-fold increase in the number of publications from the period up to 1980 compared to 2010-2019. The median number of citations per paper was 5, but unlike the number of publications, there was only a slight increase in the number of citations with time. 84.5% of the papers were cited at least once. The top 3 conditions generating the most publications were systemic lupus erythematosus, 36.7%, followed by rheumatoid arthritis, 17.0%, and osteoporosis, 13.9%.
CONCLUSIONS: The number of rheumatological publications in Malaysia have increased over time, especially in the last decade. However, the average number of citations per publications remains low and the majority of publications are in journals with low impact factors. Thus, the quality of rheumatological publications from Malaysia can be further improved.Key Points• There have been only a limited number of bibliometric analysis of rheumatology publications from Asia.• In Malaysia, the number of rheumatology publications has increased over time.• However, there is still room for improvement in terms of the quality of the publications.
METHODS: ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for all randomized, interventional, phase II-IV trials that were registered between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2009 and included adults with Alzheimer's disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease. Publications from these trials were identified by extensive online searching and contact with authors, and multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify characteristics associated with trial discontinuation and non-publication.
RESULTS: In all, 362 eligible trials were identified, of which 12% (42/362) were discontinued. 28% (91/320) of completed trials remained unpublished after 5 years. Trial discontinuation was independently associated with number of patients (P = 0.015; more likely in trials with ≤100 patients; odds ratio 2.65, 95% confidence interval 1.21-5.78) and phase of trial (P = 0.009; more likely in phase IV than phase III trials; odds ratio 3.90, 95% confidence interval 1.41-10.83). Trial non-publication was independently associated with blinding status (P = 0.005; more likely in single-blind than double-blind trials; odds ratio 5.63, 95% confidence interval 1.70-18.71), number of centres (P = 0.010; more likely in single-centre than multi-centre trials; odds ratio 2.49, 95% confidence interval 1.25-4.99), phase of trial (P = 0.041; more likely in phase II than phase IV trials; odds ratio 2.88, 95% confidence interval 1.04-7.93) and sponsor category (P = 0.001; more likely in industry-sponsored than university-sponsored trials; odds ratio 5.05, 95% confidence interval 1.87-13.63).
CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of non-dissemination bias in randomized trials of interventions for neurodegenerative diseases. Associations with trial discontinuation and non-publication were similar to findings in other diseases. These biases may distort the therapeutic information available to inform clinical practice.