Diyabetik Ayak Enfeksiyonu İle İlgili Yayınların İşbirliğine Dayalı Ağ Analizi ve Bibliyometrik Analizi

Year 2021, , 194 - 199, 31.12.2021

Müjgan Gürler Sevil Alkan Can Özlü Bünyamin Aydın

https://doi.org/10.34084/bshr.993099

Cited By: 17

Abstract

Amaç: Diyabetik ayak enfeksiyonları (DFE), hastalar ve sağlık sistemi için büyük bir küresel yüke neden olur. Mortalitenin önemli bir nedeni olan DFE'nın özelliklerini tam olarak anlamak önemlidir. Bu çalışma, DFE ile ilgili yapılan çalışmaları incelemeyi ve bundan sonraki çalışmalara rehberlik etmeyi amaçlamıştır.
Gereç ve yöntem: Web of Science (WOS) veri tabanı 28 Şubat 2021 tarihine kadar yayın aramak için tarandı. Çalışmamızda elde edilen veriler çeşitli bibliyometrik göstergeler sunmak için analiz edilirken, haritalar VOS görüntüleyici programı (VOS) kullanılarak görselleştirildi. 'Diyabetik ayak' ve 'Diyabetik ayak hastalığı' veya 'Diyabetik ayak enfeksiyonu' anahtar kelimelerini içeren yayınlar incelenmiştir.
Sonuçlar: Arama kriterlerine göre toplam 802 yayına ulaşıldı. En çok yayın ABD'dendi (%32,941). Yayınların çoğu makale (%63,6) ve endokrinoloji ve metabolizma alanındaydı. DFI ile ilgili yayınların atıf oranları yıllar içinde artmış, ancak bu konudaki yayınların sayısı yıllar içinde azalmıştır.
Sonuç: DFE ile ilgili artan akademik makalenin kalitesini değerlendirmek ve eksik çalışma konularına rehberlik etmek için bibliyometrik analiz daha yaygın olarak kullanılmalıdır.

Keywords

Bibliyometrik analiz, ağ analizi, diyabetik ayak, diyabetik ayak enfeksiyonu

Supporting Institution

yok

Project Number

yok

Collaborative Network Analysis and Bibliometric Analysis of Publications on Diabetic Foot Infection

Abstract

Aim: As the number of people with diabetes mellitus is increasing globally, its consequences are worsening. People with diabetes are prone to foot problems that develop due to prolonged periods of high blood sugar levels diabetic foot disease (DFD) results in a major global burden for patients and the health care system. It is important to fully understand the characteristics of DFD, which is a major cause of mortality, for early diagnosis and definitive treatment. Our study aimed to examine DFD studies and guide the studies to be planned in the future.
Materials and methods: In our study, the Web of Science (WOS) database was scanned to search for publications until February 28, 2021. While the data obtained in our study were analyzed to present various bibliometric indicators, the maps were visualized using the VOS viewer program (VOS viewer). The Hirsch (H) index and impact factor (IF) of the publishing journal were used as indicators of the impact of the publications. The publications containing the keywords 'Diabetic foot' and 'Diabetic foot disease' or 'Diabetic foot infection' were examined.
Results: A total of 802 publications were reached from the WOS database according to the search criteria. The most publications were from the USA (32.941%), Turkey (9.412%), and England (8.431%). Most of the publications were articles (63,6%) and meeting abstracts (16,9%). 19,4% of the publications were in the endocrinology and metabolism area. The average number of citations of these 802 publications was found to be 20,98. The H index was found to be 53. It was determined that the number of citing rates of publications on diabetic foot infections has increased over the years, however, it was determined that the number of publications on this subject decreased over the years.
Conclusion: This is the first bibliometric study on DFD. Bibliometric analysis should be used more widely to evaluate the quality of the increasing academic paper and guide the missing study issues.

Keywords

Bibliometric analysis, network analysis, diabetic foot, diabetic foot infection

Project Number

yok

References

• 1. Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, et al. Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(5):1047-1053.
• 2. Crane M, Werber B. Critical pathway approach to diabetic pedal infections in a multidisciplinary setting. J Foot Ankle Surg 1999; 38: 30–3; discussion 82–83.
• 3. Lipsky BA. A report from the international consensus on diagnosing and treating the infected diabetic foot. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2004; 20(Suppl 1):S68–77.
• 4. Calhoun JH, Cantrell J, Cobos J, et al. Treatment of diabetic foot infections: Wagner classification, therapy, and outcome. Foot Ankle 1988; 9:101–116.
• 5. Edelson GW, Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, et al. The acutely infected diabetic foot is not adequately evaluated in an inpatient setting. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156:2373–2378.
• 6. Practical Guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease (The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot IWGDF 2019 update) Nicolaas C. Schaper, Jaap J. van Netten, Jan Apelqvist, Sicco A. Bus, Robert J. Hinchliffe, Benjamin A. Lipsky, IWGDF Editorial Board Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020;36(S1):e3266. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/dmrr © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1 of 10 https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.3266
• 7. Armstrong DG. Is diabetic foot care efficacious or cost effective? Ostomy Wound Manage 2001; 47:28–32.
• 8. Pathare NA, Bal A, Talvalkar GV, et al. Diabetic foot infections: a study of microorganisms associated with the different Wagner grades. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 1998; 41:437–441.
• 9. International Consensus on the Diabetic Foot & Practical Guidelines on the Management and Prevention of the Diabetic Foot. January 2004 Current Diabetes Reports 3(6):475-9. DOI:10.1007/s11892-003-0010-4.
• 10. Boulton AJM, Armstrong DG, Kirsner RS, et al. Diagnosis and Management of Diabetic Foot Complications. American Diabetes Association, Arlington, VA, 2018 Oct. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538977/ doi: 10.2337/db20182-1. [acces date: 25 February 2021].
• 11. Aggarwal A, Lewison G, Idir S, et al. The State of Lung Cancer Research: A Global Analysis. J Thorac Oncol. 2016 Jul;11(7):1040-1050. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2016.03.010.
• 12. Zhou H, Tan W, Qiu Z, et al. A bibliometric analysis in gene research of myocardial infarction from 2001 to 2015. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4354. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4354.
• 13. Zhang J, Zhang Y, Hu L, et al. Global Trends and Performances of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies on Acupuncture: A Bibliometric Analysis. Front Neurosci. 2021 Jan 20;14:620555. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.620555.
• 14. Zha ML, Cai JY, Chen HL. A Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research Production Pertaining to Diabetic Foot Ulcers in the Past Ten Years. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2019 Mar;58(2):253-259. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2018.08.052. Epub 2019 Jan 15. PMID: 30658958.
• 15. Alkan S, Dindar Demiray EK, Yıldız E, et al. Analysis of Scientific Publications on Acinetobacter bacteremia in Web of Science. Infect Dis Clin Microbiol. 2021; 1: 39-44.
• 16. Nichols JJ, Jones L, Morgan PB, et al. Bibliometric analysis of the orthokeratology literature. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2020 Dec 6:101390. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2020.11.010. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33298369.
• 17. Manoel Alves J, Handerson Gomes Teles R, do Valle Gomes Gatto C, et al. Mapping Research in the Obesity, Adipose Tissue, and MicroRNA Field: A Bibliometric Analysis. Cells. 2019 Dec 6;8(12):1581. doi: 10.3390/cells8121581.
• 18. Beshyah WS, Beshyah SA. Bibliometric analysis of the literature on Ramadan fasting and diabetes in the past three decades (1989-2018). Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;151:313-322. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2019.03.023.
• 19. Kawuki J, Yu X, Musa TH. Bibliometric Analysis of Ebola Research Indexed in Web of Science and Scopus (2010-2020). Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:5476567.
• 20. Karasözen B, Bayram ÖG, Zan BU. WoS ve Scopus veri tabanlarının karşılaştırması. Türk Kütüphaneciliği. 2011; 25(2), 238-260.
• 21. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, et al. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal. 2008;22(2): 338–342.
• 22. Geaney F, Scutaru C, Kelly C, et al.. Type 2 Diabetes Research Yield, 1951-2012: Bibliometrics Analysis and Density-Equalizing Mapping. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0133009. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133009.
• 23. Karhade AV, Kwon JY. Trends in Foot and Ankle Studies Published in High-Impact General Medical Journals: A Systematic Review. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2019;58(3):540-544.
• 24. Al-Busaidi IS, Abdulhadi NN, Coppell KJ. Diabetic Foot Disease Research in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries: A bibliometric analysis. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2018 Aug;18(3):e338-e343. doi: 10.18295/squmj.2018.18.03.012.
• 25. Deng Z, Wang H, Chen Z, et al. Bibliometric Analysis of Dendritic Epidermal T Cell (DETC) Research From 1983 to 2019. Front Immunol. 2020 Mar 12;11:259. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00259.
• 26. Özlü C. Scopus Veri Tabanına Dayalı Bibliyometrik Değerlendirme: Miyelodisplastik Sendrom Konulu Yayınların Global Analizi ve Türkiye Kaynaklı Yayınların Değerlendirilmesi. J Biotechinol & Strategic Health Res. 2021; 5(2): 125-131.
• 27. Öntürk H, Dindar Demiray EK, Alkan S. Network analysis of nursing publications in the COVID 19 era. J Clin Med Kaz. 2021;18(4):27-31.