Global status quo and trends of research on urinary incontinence: a bibliometric and visualized study
Background
Urinary incontinence (UI) is highly prevalent and poses a considerable social and economic burden on both victims and the society at large. This study reviewed the UI-related literature to present the current status and predict future trends of UI researh.
Methods
Studies related to UI published between 2012 and 2022 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. The bibliometric analysis and visualized study were performed by using VOSviewer.
Results
A total of 3092 publications were retrieved for further analysis. The United States ranked the first in terms of the total number of publications, citations, the H-index of publications. The institutions with the most cited publications was the N8 Research Partnership. Neurourology and Urodynamics published most papers, was cited most frequently, and scored the highest H-index. The author with the most citations, and the greatest average citations per article was Nitti VW. The author with the highest H-index was Herschorn S. Articles were divided into five main clusters based on keyword analysis: epidemiological studies, diagnosis studies, therapy studies, female urinary incontinence studies, and male urinary incontinence studies. UI-related epidemiology, therapies and male UI will continue to be the hot topics.
Conclusions
This study indicated that the UI research is more intensive in Europe and North America, Neurourology and Urodynamics was the most influencial journal in the field. Moreover, epidemiology, therapy and male urinary incontinence will continue to be hot topics. Our study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the status quo and provides clues to future research directions of UI.
1. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2010;29(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20798 PMID: 19941278
2. Buckley BS, Lapitan MCM. Prevalence of Urinary Incontinence in Men, Women, and Children—Current Evidence: Findings of the Fourth International Consultation on Incontinence. Urology. 2010;76(2):265-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2009.11.078 PMID: 20541241
3. Gacci M, Sakalis VI, Karavitakis M, Cornu J-N, Gratzke C, Herrmann TRW, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Male Urinary Incontinence. Eur Urol. 2022;82(4):387-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.05.012 PMID: 35697561
4. Sheng Y, Carpenter JS, Ashton-Miller JA, Miller JM. Mechanisms of pelvic floor muscle training for managing urinary incontinence in women: a scoping review. BMC Womens Health. 2022;22(1):161. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-01742-w PMID: 35562699
5. Vaughan CP, Markland AD. Urinary Incontinence in Women. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(3):ITC17-ITC32. https://doi.org/10.7326/AITC202002040 PMID: 32016335
6. Aoki Y, Brown HW, Brubaker L, Cornu JN, Daly JO, Cartwright R. Urinary incontinence in women. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017;3:17042. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2017.42 PMID: 28681849
7. Lukacz ES, Santiago-Lastra Y, Albo ME, Brubaker L. Urinary Incontinence in Women: A Review. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1592-604. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.12137 PMID: 29067433
8. Gurol-Urganci I, Geary RS, Mamza JB, Iwagami M, El-Hamamsy D, Duckett J, et al. Determinants of referral of women with urinary incontinence to specialist services: a national cohort study using primary care data from the UK. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21(1):211. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-020-01282-y PMID: 33066730
9. Lee KP, Schotland M, Bacchetti P, Bero LA. Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2805-8. https://doi.org/ 10.1001/jama.287.21.2805 PMID: 12038918
10. Ninkov A, Frank JR, Maggio LA. Bibliometrics: Methods for studying academic publishing. Perspectives on Medical Education. 2022;11(3):173-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-021-00695-4 PMID: 34914027
11. Brandt JS, Hadaya O, Schuster M, Rosen T, Sauer MV, Ananth CV. A Bibliometric Analysis of Top-Cited Journal Articles in Obstetrics and Gynecology. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(12):e1918007. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18007 PMID: 31860106
12. He L, Fang H, Wang X, Wang Y, Ge H, Li C, et al. The 100 most-cited articles in urological surgery: A bibliometric analysis. Int J Surg. 2020;75:74-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.12.030 PMID: 31926329
13. Cooper ID. Bibliometrics basics. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015;103(4):217-8. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.013 PMID: 26512226
14. Aggarwal A, Lewison G, Idir S, Peters M, Aldige C, Boerckel W, et al. The state of lung cancer research: a global analysis. Journal of Thoracic Oncology. 2016;11(7):1040-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2016.03.010 PMID: 27013405
15. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences. 2005;102(46):16569-72. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102 PMID: 16275915
16. Hirsch JE. Does the h index have predictive power? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2007;104(49):19193-8. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707962104 PMID: 18040045
17. Findlay BL, Lyon TD, Bearrick EN, Robinson M, Viers BR, Ball CT, et al. Characterization of Gender Differences in H-index Within Urological Subspecialties. J Urol. 2023;210(2):341-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003537 PMID: 37154679
18. Perianes-Rodriguez A, Waltman L, Van Eck NJ. Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting. Journal of informetrics. 2016;10(4):1178-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.10.006
19. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L, editors. VOS: A new method for visualizing similarities between objects. Advances in Data Analysis: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft für Klassifikation eV, Freie Universität Berlin, March 8–10, 2006; 2007: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70981-7_34
20. Van Eck N, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. scientometrics. 2010;84(2):523-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 PMID: 20585380
21. Callon M, Rip A, Law J. Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world: Springer; 1986. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-07408-2
22. Small H. Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for information Science. 1973;24(4):265-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406
23. Kessler MM. Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American documentation. 1963;14(1):10-25. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140103
24. Hood WW, Wilson CS. The Literature of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, and Informetrics. Scientometrics. 2001;52(2):291. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017919924342
25. Rousseau R. Forgotten founder of bibliometrics. Nature. 2014;510(7504):218. https://doi.org/10.1038/510218e PMID: 24919911
26. Das AK, Kucherov V, Glick L, Chung P. Male urinary incontinence after prostate disease treatment. Can J Urol. 2020;27(S3):36-43. PMID: 32876001
27. Plana NM, Massie JP, Bekisz JM, Spore S, Diaz-Siso JR, Flores RL. Variations in Databases Used to Assess Academic Output and Citation Impact. The New England journal of medicine. 2017;376(25):2489-91. Epub 2017/06/22. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1616626 PMID: 28636847
28. Uthman OA, Okwundu CI, Wiysonge CS, Young T, Clarke A. Citation classics in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: who wrote the top 100 most cited articles? PloS one. 2013;8(10):e78517. Epub 2013/10/25. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078517 PMID: 24155987