An Analysis of the Mutual Publications of Anatomists and Otorhinolaryngologists: A Bibliometric Study based on the Web of Science Database

Year 2021, Volume: 31 Issue: 4, 86 - 93, 21.12.2021

Ahmet Mahmut Tekin , İlhan Bahşi

https://doi.org/10.26650/Tr-ENT.2021.1033996

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to bibliometrically examine the mutual studies in the fields of anatomy and otorhinolaryngology (ORL) recorded in the Web of Science (WoS) database between 1980-2020.

Material and Methods: The mutual publications of anatomists and otolaryngologists on 31.01.2021 are listed in the Science Citation Index-Expanded category of the Advanced Search section of the WoS database. Thus, in the search field tags, Department of Anatomy for anatomists and Department of Ear, Nose, and Throat (ENT) or Department of Otorhinolaryngology or Clinic of ENT or Clinic of Otorhinolaryngology for otolaryngologists were used for the address section. Publications from 2021, meeting abstracts, proceedings papers, early accesses, and book chapters were excluded. After the exclusion criteria were applied, the bibliometric characteristics of the remaining publications were examined.

 Results: After the exclusion criteria were applied, 1395 articles were found. The total number of citations made to these articles was 42537, and at least one citation was made to 1279 of the 1395 articles (91.68%). The h-index of these articles was 82, and the average number of citations was 30.49. In these articles, the most frequently used first five keywords were immunohistochemistry (44 times), rat (39 times), cochlea (38 times), anatomy (36 times), and facial nerve (27 times).

Conclusion: The results of our bibliometric study which evaluated the last 40 years of data in terms of networks, collaborations, and institutions could be an inspiration and source for future researchers. We may state that with the increasing technology, the applicability of interventional methods in the field of ORL might be increased by conducting more anatomical studies and yield safer results

Keywords

Anatomy, otorhinolaryngology, article, bibliometric analysis

Supporting Institution

No

References

• 1. Bahşi İ, Çetkin M, Orhan M. Anatomy of kidney: A comparative historical study. Eur J Ther 2016;22:66-71. google scholar
• 2. Bahşi İ, Topal Z, Çetkin M, Orhan M, Kervancıoğlu P, Odabaşıoğlu ME, et al. Evaluation of attitudes and opinions of medical faculty students against the use of cadaver in anatomy education and investigation of the factors affecting their emotional responses related thereto. Surg Radiol Anat 2021;43(4):481-7. google scholar
• 3. McMenamin PG, McLachlan J, Wilson A, McBride JM, Pickering J, Evans D. et al. Do we really need cadavers anymore to learn anatomy in undergraduate medicine? Med Teach 2018;40(10):1020-9. google scholar
• 4. Grignon B. Anatomy and medical imaging: a symbiotic relationship. Surg Radiol Anat 2012;34(8):673-4. google scholar
• 5. Wing L, Massoud TF. Trends in performance indicators of neuroimaging anatomy research publications: a bibliometric study of major neuroradiology journal output over four decades based on web of science database. Clin Anat 2015;28(1):16-26. google scholar
• 6. Gualtieri T, Verzeletti V, Ferrari M, Perotti P, Morello R, Taboni S, et al. A new landmark for lingual artery identification during transoral surgery: Anatomic-radiologic study. Head Neck 2021;43(5):1487-98. google scholar
• 7. Noiphithak R, Yanez-Siller JC, Revuelta Barbero JM, Otto BA, Carrau RL, Prevedello DM. Comparative Analysis Between Lateral Orbital Rim Preservation and Osteotomy for Transorbital Endoscopic Approaches to the Cavernous Sinus: An Anatomic Study. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2019;16(1):86-93. google scholar
• 8. Vural A, Carobbio ALC, Ferrari M, Rampinelli V, Schreiber A, Mattavelli D, et al. Transorbital endoscopic approaches to the skull base: a systematic literature review and anatomical description. Neurosurg Rev 2021;44:2857-78. google scholar
• 9. Bahşi İ, Orhan M, Kervancıoğlu P, Yalçın ED. The anatomical and radiological evaluation of the Vidian canal on cone-beam computed tomography images. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019;276(5):1373-83. google scholar
• 10. Yang H, Pan BC, Chen J. Citation analysis of five journals in andrology. Arch Androl 2006;52(6):433-40. google scholar
• 11. Adanır SS, Bahşi İ, Kervancıoğlu P, Orhan M, Cihan ÖF. Bibliometric analysis of articles published in Anatomy, the official publication of the Turkish Society of Anatomy and Clinical Anatomy between 2007-2018. Anatomy 2020;14(1):39-43. google scholar
• 12. Aria M, Cuccurullo C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive sciencemappinganalysis.JournalofInformetrics2017;11(4):959-75. google scholar
• 13. Topal Z, Bahsi I, Tufan AE. Evaluation of The Psychiatric Research Output From Turkey Via Web Of Science Database: A Bibliometric Analysis. Psychiatry Clin Psychopharmacol 2020;30(4):423-33. google scholar
• 14. Miao L, Ji J, Wan L, Zhang J, Yin L, Pu Y. An overview of research trends and genetic polymorphisms for noise-induced hearing loss from 2009 to 2018. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2019;26(34):34754-74. google scholar
• 15. Tekin AM, Bahşi İ. Global Research on Maxillofacial Fracture over the last 40 years: A Bibliometric Study. J Craniofac Surg 2021;32(6):e568-72. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007627. google scholar
• 16. Shi M, Huang W, Shu L, Hou G, Guan Y, Song G. Research on polycystic ovary syndrome: a bibliometric analysis from 2009 to 2019. Gynecol Endocrinol 2021;37(2):121-5. google scholar
• 17. Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. Jama 2009;302(10):1092-6. google scholar
• 18. Saunders TFC, Rymer BC, McNamara KJ. A global bibliometric analysis of otolaryngology: Head and neck surgery literature. Clin Otolaryngol 2017;42(6):1338-42. google scholar
• 19. Xue T, Wei L, Zha DJ, Qiao L, Qiu JH, Lu LJ, et al. Publications about hearing in otorhinolaryngology journals from chinese authors: a 11-year survey of the literature. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;64(2):106-9. google scholar
• 20. Gao H, Huang FY, Wang ZP. Research Trends of Macrophage Polarization: A Bibliometric Analysis. Chin Med J (Engl) 2018;131(24):2968-75. google scholar
• 21. Grepin KA, Pinkstaff CB, Shroff ZC, Ghaffar A. Donor funding health policy and systems research in low- and middle-income countries: how much, from where and to whom. Health Res Policy Syst 2017;15:68. google scholar
• 22. Vanni T, Mesa-Frias M, Sanchez-Garcia R, Roesler R, Schwartsmann G, Goldani MZ, et al. International scientific collaboration in HIV and HPV: a network analysis. PLoS One 2014;9(3):e93376. google scholar
• 23. Li T, Ho YS, Li CY. Bibliometric analysis on global Parkinson’s disease research trends during 1991-2006. Neurosci Lett 2008;441(3):248-52. google scholar
• 24. Ekundayo TC, Okoh AI. A global bibliometric analysis of Plesiomonas-related research (1990 - 2017). PLoS One 2018;13(11):e0207655. google scholar
• 25. Zyoud SH. Global toxocariasis research trends from 1932 to 2015: a bibliometric analysis. Health Res Policy Syst 2017;15(1):14. google scholar
• 26. Zhou P, Tijssen R, Leydesdorff L. University-Industry Collaboration in China and the USA: A Bibliometric Comparison. PLoS One 2016;11(11):e0165277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165277. google scholar
• 27. Callaham M, Wears RL, Weber E. Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. Jama 2002;287(21):2847-50. google scholar
• 28. Zongyi Y, Dongying C, Baifeng L. Global Regulatory T-Cell Research from 2000 to 2015: A Bibliometric Analysis. PLoS One 2016;11(9):e0162099. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162099. google scholar
• 29. Shen S, Cheng C, Yang J, Yang S. Visualized analysis of developing trends and hot topics in natural disaster research. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0191250. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191250. google scholar
• 30. Mehanna AM, Abdelnaby MM, Eid M. The Anatomy and Anatomical Variations of the Round Window Prechamber and Their Implications on Cochlear Implantation: An Anatomical, Imaging, and Surgical Study. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020;24(3):e288-98. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1698783. google scholar
• 31. Tekin AM, Matulic M, Wuyts W, Assadi MZ, Mertens G, Rompaey VV, et al. A New Pathogenic Variant in POU3F4 Causing Deafness Due to an Incomplete Partition of the Cochlea Paved the Way for Innovative Surgery. Genes (Basel) 2021;12(5):613. google scholar
• 32. Rathgeb C, Wagner F, Wimmer W, Gerber N, Williamson T, Anschütz L, et al. The accuracy of image-based safety analysis for robotic cochlear implantation. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2019;14(1):83-92. google scholar
• 33. Schneider D, Stenin I, Anso J, Hermann J, Mueller F, Pereira Bom Braga G, et al. Robotic cochlear implantation: feasibility of a multiport approach in an ex vivo model. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019;276(5):1283-9. google scholar
• 34. Torres R, Jia H, Drouillard M, Bensimon JL, Sterkers O, Ferrary E, et al. An Optimized Robot-Based Technique for Cochlear Implantation to Reduce Array Insertion Trauma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018;159(5):900-7. google scholar
• 35. Torres R, Kazmitcheff G, De Seta D, Ferrary E, Sterkers O, Nguyen Y. Improvement of the insertion axis for cochlear implantation with a robot-based system. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017;274(2):715-21. google scholar
• 36. Hall P, Weaver L. Interdisciplinary education and teamwork: a long and winding road. Med Educ 2001;35(9):867-75. google scholar
• 37. Greene JR. Design and development of a new facility for teaching and research in clinical anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 2009;2(1):34-40. google scholar