2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Artificial liver research output and citations from 2004 to 2017: a bibliometric analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Researches on artificial livers greatly contribute to the clinical treatments for liver failure. This study aimed to evaluate the research output of artificial livers and citations from 2004 to 2017 through a bibliometric analysis.

          Methods

          A list of included articles on artificial livers were generated after a comprehensive search of the Web of Science Core Collection (from 2004 to 2017) with the following basic information: number of publications, citations, publication year, country of origin, authors and authorship, funding source, journals, institutions, keywords, and research area.

          Results

          A total of 968 included articles ranged from 47 citations to 394 citations with a fluctuation. The publications were distributed in 12 countries, led by China ( n = 212) and the US ( n = 207). There were strong correlations of the number of citations with authors ( r 2 = 0.133, p < 0.001), and countries ( r 2 = 0.275, p < 0.001), while no correlations of the number of citations with the years since publication ( r 2 = 0.016, p = 0.216), and funding ( r 2 < 0.001, p = 0.770) were identified. Keyword analysis demonstrated that with the specific change of “acute liver failure,” decrease in “bioartificial livers” and “hepatocyte,” and increase in “tissue engineering” were identified. The top 53 cited keyword and keyword plus (including some duplicates counts) were identified, led by bioartificial liver (405 citations) and hepatocyte (248 citations). The top 50 cited keywords bursts were mainly “Blood” (2004–2008), “hepatocyte like cell” (2008–2015), and “tissue engineering” (2014–2017). All keywords could be classified into four categories: bioartificial livers (57.40%), blood purification (25.00%), clinical (14.81%), and other artificial organs (2.78%).

          Discussion

          This study shows the process and tendency of artificial liver research with a comprehensive analysis on artificial livers. However, although it seems that the future of artificial livers seems brighter for hepatocyte transplantation, the systems of artificial livers now are inclined on focusing on blood purification, plasma exchange, etc.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The history and meaning of the journal impact factor.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Bibliometric methods: pitfalls and possibilities.

            Bibliometric studies are increasingly being used for research assessment. Bibliometric indicators are strongly methodology-dependent but for all of them, various types of data normalization are an indispensable requirement. Bibliometric studies have many pitfalls; technical skill, critical sense and a precise knowledge about the examined scientific domain are required to carry out and interpret bibliometric investigations correctly.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics

              Traditionally, the success of a researcher is assessed by the number of publications he or she publishes in peer-reviewed, indexed, high impact journals. This essential yardstick, often referred to as the impact of a specific researcher, is assessed through the use of various metrics. While researchers may be acquainted with such matrices, many do not know how to use them to enhance their careers. In addition to these metrics, a number of other factors should be taken into consideration to objectively evaluate a scientist's profile as a researcher and academician. Moreover, each metric has its own limitations that need to be considered when selecting an appropriate metric for evaluation. This paper provides a broad overview of the wide array of metrics currently in use in academia and research. Popular metrics are discussed and defined, including traditional metrics and article-level metrics, some of which are applied to researchers for a greater understanding of a particular concept, including varicocele that is the thematic area of this Special Issue of Asian Journal of Andrology. We recommend the combined use of quantitative and qualitative evaluation using judiciously selected metrics for a more objective assessment of scholarly output and research impact.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ Inc. (San Diego, USA )
                2167-8359
                11 January 2019
                2019
                : 6
                : e6178
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University , Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
                [2 ]The First School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University , Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
                [3 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Guangdong General Hospital and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, South China University of Technology , Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
                [4 ]Guangdong Geriatrics Institute, Guangdong General Hospital and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, South China University of Technology , Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7685-6073
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9964-9181
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9566-5045
                Article
                6178
                10.7717/peerj.6178
                6330953
                588130f1-8840-44d5-a72b-9547bfb358fe
                © 2019 Li et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.

                History
                : 24 September 2018
                : 28 November 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: Undergraduate Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program
                Award ID: 201712121157
                Funded by: China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (CPSF)
                Award ID: No. 2018T110855 and No. 2017M622650
                Funded by: National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC)
                Award ID: No. 81300370
                This work was supported in part by grants from the Undergraduate Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program (201712121157), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (CPSF, No. 2018T110855 and No. 2017M622650) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, No. 81300370). There was no additional external funding received for this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Gastroenterology and Hepatology
                Statistics
                Data Science

                artificial livers,bibliometric analysis,citations,keyword

                Comments

                Comment on this article