A bibliometric analysis of scientific production in mesothelioma research

Our plain-English summary of A bibliometric analysis of scientific production in mesothelioma research, by D. Ugolini, M. Neri, C. Casilli, et al (Lung Cancer, 2010).

The study

• Authors: D. Ugolini, M. Neri, C. Casilli, M. Ceppi, P.A. Canessa, G.P. Ivaldi, M. Paganuzzi, S. Bonassi
• Journal: Lung Cancer
• Published: 2010;70(2):129-35
• Cited by: 18 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

This study aims at comparing scientific production in malignant mesothelioma (MM) among countries and evaluating publication trends and impact factor (IF). The PubMed database was searched with a strategy combining keywords listed in the Medical Subject Headings and free-text search. Publications numbers and IF were evaluated both as absolute values and after standardization by population and gross domestic product (GDP). 5240 citations were retrieved from the biennium 1951-1952 (n = 22) to 2005-2006 (n = 535). The 177% increase of MM publications from 1987 to 2006 exceeded by large the corresponding value of total cancer literature (123.5%). In these two decades, 2559 articles with IF were published: 46.4% came from the European Union (EU) (the UK, Italy and France ranking at the top), and 36.2% from the US. The highest mean IF was reported for the US (3.346), followed by Australia (3.318), and EU (2.415, with the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands first). Finland, Sweden and Australia had the best ratio between IF (sum) and resident population or GDP. The number of publications correlated with GDP (p = 0.001) and national MM mortality rates (p = 0.002). An association was found between a country commitment to MM research and the burden of disease (p = 0.04). Asbestos, survival, prognosis, occupational exposure, differential diagnosis, and immunohistochemistry were the most commonly used keywords. This report represents the first effort to explore the geographical and temporal distribution of MM research and its determinants. This is an essential step in understanding science priorities and developing disease control policies.

Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

In plain English

This journal 'Review' was a bibliometric analysis: the authors counted published mesothelioma papers rather than studying patients. They searched PubMed for 1951–2006 papers, excluding letters, editorials, news, congress reports and case reports. They found 5240, rising from 22 in 1951–1952 to 535 in 2005–2006, and focused on 1987–2006. Of 2559 papers from that period in journals with an impact factor (a citation-based journal score), the authors' 'EU' group (15 member states plus Norway) produced 1187 (46.4%) and the US 926 (36.2%). The US had the highest mean impact factor (3.346), then Australia (3.318) and the EU group (2.415). Dividing summed impact factors by population or by GDP (economic output), Finland, Sweden and Australia ranked highest. Paper counts were statistically associated with GDP and with national mesothelioma death rates. A country's relative focus on mesothelioma research was linked to disease burden (p = 0.04) only after excluding outliers Finland and South Africa. No association was found with asbestos ban timing. The authors concluded that research was driven mainly by research facilities and economic resources, though local disease burden may play a role.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Bibliometric analysis of PubMed publication records (published under the journal heading 'Review')
• Who was studied: 5240 PubMed citations on mesothelioma published 1951–2006 (search run February 2008), excluding congresses, letters, editorials, news and case reports. Detailed analyses covered 3273 citations from 1987–2006, of which 2559 were in journals with an impact factor. The 'EU' group was defined as the 15 member states plus Norway.
• Exposure: No exposure was studied directly. The study measured research output by country. 'Asbestos' was among the most frequent indexing keywords. Publication trends were also compared before and after national asbestos bans.
• Main results:
  • Mesothelioma papers worldwide grew from 22 in 1951–1952 to 535 in 2005–2006.
  • Comparing 2005–2006 with 1987–1988, mesothelioma papers increased 177%, against 123.5% for the total cancer literature.
  • Of 2559 papers with an impact factor from 1987–2006, the 'EU' group (15 member states plus Norway) published 1187 (46.4%) and the US 926 (36.2%).
  • Highest mean impact factor: US 3.346, Australia 3.318, EU group 2.415.
  • Impact factor sum per million inhabitants was highest in Finland (2.49) and Sweden (1.42). Australia's value was 1.04.
  • Impact factor sum relative to GDP was highest in Finland (9.76) and Sweden (4.94). Australia's value was 4.02.
  • The total number of publications was correlated with GDP (p = 0.001) and with national mesothelioma mortality rates (p = 0.002).
  • Relative commitment to mesothelioma research was significantly associated with disease burden (p = 0.04) only after removing Finland and South Africa as outliers.
  • No association was found between the introduction of asbestos bans and changes in publication trends (data not shown).
  • The most frequent keywords were mesothelioma (3252) and pleural neoplasms (1702), followed by asbestos (1330).
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that mesothelioma research is driven mainly by experienced research facilities and economic resources, but that local mesothelioma burden may have a role in driving interest in the field.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • Assigning a paper to a country by the first author's affiliation may be misleading.
  • Impact factor is an imprecise quality measure: it is a journal average, not a score for the individual article.
  • PubMed favours English-language journals, likely penalising countries such as China, Japan and Russia.
  • Basic, epidemiological, translational and clinical research were pooled together, which could be misleading for setting priorities.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Lung cancer, Mesothelioma.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Mesothelioma, Malignant Mesothelioma, Prognosis, Occupational Exposure, Differential Diagnosis, Immunohistochemistry.

Related studies

• Research on the societal impacts of nanotechnology: a preliminary comparison of USA, Europe and Japan — M. Matsuda, G. Hunt (2009)
• I-O Optimise: a novel multinational real-world research platform in thoracic malignancies — S. Ekman, F. Griesinger, et al. (2019)
• The silence: the asbestos industry and early occupational cancer research--a case study — D.E. Lilienfeld (1991)
• Research needed for mesothelioma. Financial compensation after death is no panacea — E. Lanzetta (2003)
• Publication trend, resource utilization, and impact of the US National Cancer Database: A systematic review — C. Su, C. Peng, et al. (2018)
• Occupational health research in India — H.N. Saiyed, R.R. Tiwari (2004)

Browse more research in Lung Cancer, or return to medical research.