Ebelik, Histoloji ve Embriyolojinin Kesişim Noktasında Bibliyometrik Analiz

Abstract

Amaç: Sağlık bilimlerinde artan disiplinler arası yaklaşımlar, ebelik mesleğini hem akademik hem de klinik düzeyde geleneksel doğum yönetiminin ötesine taşımıştır. Bu çalışma, bibliyometrik göstergeler kullanarak ebelik ile histoloji ve embriyoloji gibi temel biyomedikal bilimler arasındaki disiplinler arası etkileşimleri ve akademik bağlantıları incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu bibliyometrik analizde Web of Science (WoS) veri tabanından alınan yayınlar kullanılmıştır. "Ebe" (midwife) anahtar kelimesi ile birlikte "embriyo" (embryo) veya "histoloji" (histology) kelimelerini içeren yayınlar taranmıştır. Analize toplam 53 çalışma dahil edilmiştir. Yayınlar iki tematik kümede sınıflandırılmıştır. Yayın yılı, ülke, dergi dağılımı, atıf metrikleri ve anahtar kelime eş-dizilim haritalaması gibi nicel bibliyometrik göstergeler analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen yayınlar, daha sonra karşılaştırmalı bibliyometrik değerlendirme için iki tematik küme altında gruplandırılmıştır. Bulgular: Yayınların 44'ü ebelik-embriyoloji, 9'u ise ebelik-histoloji konularına odaklanmıştır. Bulgular; histoloji ve embriyolojinin, gebelikteki fizyolojik adaptasyonları hücresel ve doku düzeyinde açıklayarak ve fetal gelişimi kavramsal bir çerçevede ele alarak ebelik eğitimine ve kanıta dayalı karar verme sürecine katkıda bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Yayınların dağılımı, ebelik alanında temel bilimlere yönelik artan bir akademik ilginin varlığını ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç: Bulgular, ebelik ile histoloji ve embriyoloji arasındaki disiplinler arası entegrasyonun güçlendiğine işaret etmektedir. Veriler, ebelik eğitiminde temel biyomedikal bilimlere yönelik daha yapılandırılmış bir yaklaşım gerekliliğini desteklemektedir. Bu bulgular; gelecekteki disiplinler arası araştırmalar, müfredat geliştirme ve klinik uygulamalar için yol gösterici bir çerçeve sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• ebelik
• histoloji
• embriyoloji
• bibliyometrik analiz
• disiplinlerarasılık

Bibliometric Analysis at the Intersection of Midwifery, Histology and Embryology

Abstract

Aim: Increasing interdisciplinary approaches in health sciences have shifted midwifery beyond traditional birth management, both academically and clinically. This study aims to examine the interdisciplinary interactions and academic connections between midwifery and foundational biomedical sciences such as histology and embryology, using bibliometric indicators. Material and Methods: This bibliometric analysis used publications from the Web of Science (WoS) database. Publications containing the keyword "midwife" and either "embryo" or "histology" were searched. A total of 53 studies were included in the analysis. The publications were classified into two thematic clusters. Quantitative bibliometric indicators, including publication year, country, journal distribution, citation metrics, and keyword co-occurrence mapping, were analysed. The retrieved publications were subsequently grouped into two thematic clusters for comparative bibliometric evaluation. Results: 44 publications focused on midwifery–embryology and nine on midwifery–histology. The findings show that histology and embryology contribute to midwifery education and evidence-based decision-making. They do this by explaining physiological adaptations in pregnancy at the cellular and tissue levels and by addressing fetal development within a conceptual framework. The distribution of publications reveals a growing academic interest in basic sciences within midwifery. Conclusions: The findings indicate a strengthening of interdisciplinary integration between midwifery, histology, and embryology. The data support the need for a more structured approach to basic biomedical sciences in midwifery education. These findings provide a guiding framework for future interdisciplinary research, curriculum development, and clinical practice.

Keywords

• midwifery
• histology
• embryology
• bibliometric analysis
• interdisciplinarity

References

1. Adizadeh-Talasaz F, Roudsari R, Simbar M. Decision for disclosure: The experiences of Iranian infertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive donation procedures. Hum Fertil. 2015;18(4):265-275. doi:10.3109/14647273.2015.1076579
2. Almonte M, Ferreccio C, Winkler J, et al. Cervical screening by visual inspection, HPV testing, liquid-based and conventional cytology in Amazonian Peru. Int J Cancer. 2007;121(4):796-802. doi:10.1002/ijc.22757
3. Altmann J, Kummer J, Herse F, et al. Lifting the veil of secrecy: maternal and neonatal outcome of oocyte donation pregnancies in Germany. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022;306(1):59-69. doi:10.1007/s00404-021-06264-8
4. Awodele O, Coulidiaty A, Afolayan G, et al. Toxicological evaluation of Picralima nitida in rodents. J Ethnopharmacol. 2019;236:205-219. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2019.03.008
5. Bardis N, Maruthini D, Balen A. Modes of conception and multiple pregnancy: a national survey of babies born during one week in 2003 in the United Kingdom. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(6):1727-1732. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.05.052
6. Begley A. Preparation for practice in the new millennium: A discussion of the moral implications of multifetal pregnancy reduction. Nurs Ethics. 2000;7(2):99-112. doi:10.1177/096973300000700203
7. Bidgoli M, Roudsari R. The Effect of the Collaborative Infertility Counseling Model on Coping Strategies in Infertile Women Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Womens Health Reprod Sci. 2018;6(1):47-54. doi:10.15296/ijwhr.2018.09
8. Bjuresten K, Hreinsson J, Fridström M, Rosenlund B, Ek I, Hovatta O. Embryo transfer by midwife or gynecologist: a prospective randomized study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82(5):462-466.

9. Blavier F, Cosyns S, Dony N, et al. Perception and knowledge of early pregnancy assessment units among perinatal practitioners in Europe. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;143(3):289-299. doi:10.1002/ijgo.12661
10. Boggavarapu N, Lalitkumar S, Joshua V, et al. Expression profiling of receptive endometrium reveals progesterone regulated ENPP3 is differentially expressed and secreted in glycosylated form. Sci Rep. 2016;6. doi:10.1038/srep33811
11. Bourdon M, Ouazana M, Maignien C, et al. Embryo transfer learning using medical simulation tools: a comparison of two embryo transfer simulators. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2023;52(3). doi:10.1016/j.jogoh.2023.102542
12. Bouvier N, Trenque T, Gabriel R, Quereux C, Millart H. Risk of self-medication in pregnancy. Presse Med. 2001;30(1):37-40.
13. Cedar S. Stem cell and related therapies: Nurses and midwives representing all parties. Nurs Ethics. 2006;13(3):292-303. doi:10.1191/0969733006ne862oa
14. Chiodo L, Cosmian C, Pereira K, et al. Prenatal Alcohol Screening During Pregnancy by Midwives and Nurses. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2019;43(8):1747-1758. doi:10.1111/acer.14114
15. Cunningham J, Goldsmith L, Skirton H. The evidence base regarding the experiences of and attitudes to preimplantation genetic diagnosis in prospective parents. Midwifery. 2015;31(2):288-296. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2014.09.010
16. Dason E, Maxim M, Sanders O, et al. Guideline No. 437: Diagnosis and Management of Adenomyosis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2023;45(6). doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2023.04.008
17. Donthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, Pandey N, Lim WM. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J Bus Res. 2021;133:285-296. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
18. Elfström K, Sundström K, Andersson S, et al. Increasing participation in cervical screening by targeting long-term nonattenders: Randomized health services study. Int J Cancer. 2019;145(11):3033-3039. doi:10.1002/ijc.32374
19. Gameiro S, Boivin J, Dancet E, et al. ESHRE guideline: routine psychosocial care in infertility and medically assisted reproduction-a guide for fertility staff. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(11):2476-2485. doi:10.1093/humrep/dev177
20. Gay C, Cros A, Berbis J, Bretelle F, Perrin J, Courbiere B. Evaluation of “Energy Resonance by Cutaneous Stimulation” Among Women Treated by In Vitro Fertilization. J Altern Complement Med. 2018;24(6):578-583. doi:10.1089/acm.2017.0155
21. Geuverink W, Gitsels J, Cornel M, et al. The impact of counselors’ values and religious beliefs on their role identity and perspectives on heritable genome editing: a qualitative interview study. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2024;11(1). doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03576-3
22. Goldstein C, O’Brien L, Bergin I, Saunders T. The effect of repeated light-dark shifts on uterine receptivity and early gestation in mice undergoing embryo transfer. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2018;64(2):103-111. doi:10.1080/19396368.2017.1408715
23. Gourounti K, Anagnostopoulos F, Vaslamatzis G. The Relation of Psychological Stress to Pregnancy Outcome Among Women Undergoing In-Vitro Fertilization and Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection. Women Health. 2011;51(4):321-339. doi:10.1080/03630242.2011.574791
24. Graham N, Stephens L, Heazell A. Care in pregnancies subsequent to stillbirth or perinatal death. Obstetrician Gynaecologist. 2021;23(1):48-59. doi:10.1111/tog.12708
25. He J, Xiao Y, Ding W, et al. Maternal, placental, and neonatal outcomes after asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first trimester of pregnancy: A case report. Case Rep Womens Health. 2021;31.
26. Hopwood N. A Marble Embryo: Meanings of a Portrait from 1900. Hist Workshop J. 2012;(73):5-36. doi:10.1093/hwj/dbq051
27. Hovatta O, McVeigh E, Lass A, Homburg R, No Europe Gonal-f Pre-Filled Pen P. A large Northern European observational study of follitropin alpha filled-by-mass pre-filled pen. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18(4):502-508. doi:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60126-5
28. Jurado-García E, Botello-Hermosa A, Fernández-Carrasco F, et al. Multiple Gestations and Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Qualitative Study of the Discourse of Health Professionals in Spain. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(11). doi:10.3390/ijerph18116031
29. Krones T. Attitudes of patients, healthcare professionals and ethicists towards embryonic stem cell research and donation of gametes and embryos in Germany. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13(5):607-617. doi:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60650-5
30. Krones T, Schlüter E, Neuwohner E, et al. What is the preimplantation embryo? Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(1):1-20. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.12.014
31. Lilliecreutz C, Karlsson H, Holm A. Participation in interventions and recommended follow-up for non-attendees in cervical cancer screening-taking the women’s own preferred test method into account-A Swedish randomised controlled trial. PLoS One. 2020;15(7). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0235202
32. Montero A, Ramirez-Pereira M, Robledo P, et al. Conscientious objection as structural violence in the voluntary termination of pregnancy in Chile. Front Psychol. 2022;13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1007025
33. Moral-Munoz J, Herrera-Viedma E, Espejo A, Cobo M. Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. Prof Inf. 2020;29. doi:10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03
34. Mwaka A, Wabinga H, Mayanja-Kizza H. Mind the gaps: a qualitative study of perceptions of healthcare professionals on challenges and proposed remedies for cervical cancer help-seeking in post conflict northern Uganda. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-14-193
35. Palomba S, Viganò P, Chamayou S, et al. Diagnosis and management of infertility: NICE-adapted guidelines from the Italian Society of Human Reproduction. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2024;22(1). doi:10.1186/s12958-023-01179-2
36. Papaharitou S, Nakopoulou E, Moraitou M, et al. Reproductive health and midwives: Does occupational status differentiate their attitudes on assisted reproduction technologies from those of the general population? Hum Reprod. 2007;22(7):2033-2039. doi:10.1093/humrep/dem086
37. Quinn G, Vadaparampil S, Jacobsen P, et al. Frozen Hope: Fertility Preservation for Women With Cancer. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010;55(2):175-180. doi:10.1016/j.jmwh.2009.07.009
38. Rady H, Gaber Z, Agamia A, Melies M. A Study of Sensitivity of Visual Inspection of the Cervix with Acetic Acid in Cervical Cancer Screening. Indian J Gynecol Oncol. 2019;17(2). doi:10.1007/s40944-019-0272-7
39. Renfrew MJ, McFadden A, Bastos MH, et al. Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care. Lancet. 2014;384(9948):1129-1145. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60789-3
40. Rinaldi L, Floccari A, Selman H. Ultrasound guidance of embryo transfer: A role for midwife. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2014;5(2):47-49. doi:10.1016/j.srhc.2014.01.003
41. Rinaldi L, Selman H, Floccari A, et al. Nurse/midwife versus doctor performing ultrasound guidance of embryo transfer: a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:I258-I259. doi:10.1093/humrep/26.s1.86
42. Roberts C, Raynes-Greenow C, Algert C, Peat B. Higher order multiple pregnancies in New South Wales 1990-1999. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;42(1):51-54.
43. Roudsari R, Bidgoli M. The Effect of Collaborative Infertility Counseling on Marital Satisfaction in Infertile Women Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Nurs Midwifery Stud. 2017;6(2). doi:10.5812/nmsjournal.36723
44. Saffari M, Khashavi Z, Valiani M. The Effect of Auriculotherapy on the Stress and the Outcomes of Assistant Reproductive Technologies in Infertile Women. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2018;23(1):8-13. doi:10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_105_16
45. Samani R, Almasi-Hashiani A, Vesali S, et al. Tehran Survey of Potential Risk Factors for Multiple Births. Int J Fertil Steril. 2017;11(3):220-225. doi:10.22074/ijfs.2017.4700
46. Shafi N, Bukhari F, Iqbal W, et al. Cleft prediction before birth using deep neural network. Health Informatics J. 2020;26(4):2568-2585. doi:10.1177/1460458220911789
47. Slatinek S. Criminal Offence against Human Life. Bogoslovni Vestnik. 2007;67(4):505-520.
48. Somers S, Cotton H, Kendrew H, et al. Empowering nurses and midwives: the evidence-base for the Nurses and Midwives Certification Programme of ESHRE. Hum Reprod. Published online August 28, 2024. doi:10.1093/humrep/deae175
49. Taebi M, Bahrami R, Bagheri-Lankarani N, Shahriari M. Ethical Challenges of Embryo Donation in Embryo Donors and Recipients. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2018;23(1):36-39. doi:10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_162_16
50. Van Montfoort A, Arts E, Wijnandts L, et al. Reduced oxygen concentration during human IVF culture improves embryo utilization and cumulative pregnancy rates per cycle. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020(1). doi:10.1093/hropen/hoz036
51. Vials J. A literature review on the antiphospholipid syndrome and the effect on childbearing. Midwifery. 2001;17(2):142-149. doi:10.1054/midw.2000.0242
52. Vonck S, Staelens A, Bollen I, et al. Why non-invasive maternal hemodynamics assessment is clinically relevant in early pregnancy: a literature review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16. doi:10.1186/s12884-016-1091-9
53. Yamamoto S, Premji S. The Role of Body, Mind, and Environment in Preterm Birth: Mind the Gap. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2017;62(6):696-705. doi:10.1111/jmwh.12658
54. Zandi M, Dabaghi S, Akinabadi A, et al. Experiences of mothers receiving donated embryos. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2023;28(5):559-568. doi:10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_462_20
55. Zwingerman R, Langlois S. Committee Opinion No. 406: Prenatal Testing After IVF With Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2020;42(11):1437-1443. doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2019.11.069
56. Zwingerman R, Langlois S. Prenatal Testing After IVF With Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2020;42(11):1444-1448. doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2020.09.010
57. Zupic I, Čater T. Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organ Res Methods. 2015;18(3):429-472. doi:10.1177/1094428114562629
58. Dulcen HY, Kantek F. Bibliometric analysis of master's theses in the field of midwifery. Gumushane Univ J Health Sci. 2021;9(4):357-364. doi:10.37989/gumussagbil.540343
59. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2010;84(2):523-538. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
60. Topsakal O. Bibliometric and visualization analysis of publications on lifestyle behaviors in infertility. Hacettepe Univ Fac Health Sci J. 2024;11(3):193-200.
61. Reeves S, Pelone F, Harrison R, Goldman J, Zwarenstein M. Interprofessional collaboration to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(6):CD000072. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000072.pub3