Open Access

Global methaemoglobinaemia research output (1940–2013): a bibliometric analysis

  • Sa’ed H. Zyoud1, 2, 3,
  • Samah W. Al-Jabi2Email author,
  • Waleed M. Sweileh4,
  • Suleiman Al-Khalil5,
  • Malik Alqub5 and
  • Rahmat Awang3
SpringerPlus20154:626

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1431-7

Received: 23 August 2015

Accepted: 12 October 2015

Published: 19 October 2015

Abstract

Bibliometric studies, which involve the use of statistical methods, are increasingly being used for research assessment. A bibliometric analysis was conducted to evaluate the publication pattern of methaemoglobinaemia research output at the global level based on the Scopus database. We analysed selected documents with “methemoglobinemia”, or “methaemoglobinaemia” as a part of the title and reported the following parameters: trends of publication output, country of publication, journal pattern, collaborative measures, citations pattern, and institute productivity. A total of 1770 articles were published worldwide. The time trend for the number of articles showed an increase after 2000. The highest number of articles related to methaemoglobinaemia was from the USA (24.8 %), followed distantly by the UK (4.5 %), India (3.7 %), and France (3.7 %). No data related to methaemoglobinaemia were published from 152 countries. The total number of citations at the date of data collection was 10,080, with an average of 5.7 citations per document. The USA and UK had the highest h-index of 31 and 14, respectively, and six countries had an h-index of 9–14. It is notable that Canada was ranked eighth in the number of publications but fourth in h-index and India was ranked third in the number of publications but eighth in h-index. Furthermore, Canada produced the most internationally collaborated papers out of the total number of publications for each country (16.1 %), followed by the UK (13.9 %). This bibliometric analysis provides data contributing to a better understanding of the methaemoglobinaemia research field. The number of publications on methaemoglobinaemia increased significantly after 2000. The USA was the most productive country as measured by total publications. The USA and UK achieved the highest h-index in the field of methaemoglobinaemia research, signifying a higher quality of research than other countries.

Keywords

BibliometricCitations h-indexMethaemoglobinaemiaScopus database

Background

Methaemoglobinaemia is a disorder that occurs when haemoglobin in the blood is oxidized to form methaemoglobin (MetHb), rendering it unable to transport oxygen. Furthermore, when the MetHb concentration is elevated in red blood cells, it leads to tissue hypoxia (Skold et al. 2011; Cortazzo and Lichtman 2014). Patients are particularly susceptible to worsening methaemoglobinaemia in the presence of oxidizing agents (Mitsides et al. 2014; Sohn et al. 2014; Wieringa et al. 2014). Medications or agents such as anaesthetics (e.g. lidocaine), antibiotics (e.g. sulphanilamide and dapsone), nitrites (e.g. nitroglycerin/nitric oxide), hair dyes, and curing salt are the most likely causative agents for Methaemoglobinaemia (Cortazzo and Lichtman 2014; Mitsides et al. 2014; Wieringa et al. 2014).

There is an individual variation to oxidize Hb, and this may lead to variations in responses to ingestion of the previously mentioned agents (Cortazzo and Lichtman 2014). Healthy people can tolerate low levels of MetHb without difficulty (Skold et al. 2011). Cyanosis and hypoxia are observed often due to reduction in peripheral oxygen saturation measurements (Skold et al. 2011), so an increase in MetHb can lead to dyspnoea, headache, dizziness, seizures, acidosis, arrhythmias, coma, and death (Skold et al. 2011; Cortazzo and Lichtman 2014). Early recognition of methaemoglobinaemia is important because removal or stopping of the causative agent is the first line in treatment (Skold et al. 2011).

Bibliometric studies, which involve the use of statistical methods, are increasingly being used for research assessment (Wallin 2005; Zyoud et al. 2014b, c, d). Methods used in bibliometric studies are mainly quantitative, but can be used to assess the quality of research productivity for a particular country or institution (Wallin 2005; Abramo et al. 2009; Smith 2012). Several recent studies have analysed the scientific research productivity related to various diseases (Sweileh et al. 2014a, b, 2015a, b, c). In point of fact, the assessment of scientific research productivity in the field of haematology has been poorly investigated to date, and only a small number of international bibliometric studies have been published within the field of haematology (Morimoto et al. 2003; Acevedo et al. 2014). To the best of our knowledge, no study until now has been concerned with the assessment of research productivity in the field of methaemoglobinaemia originating worldwide. The objective of the presented study was to analyse the publication pattern of methaemoglobinaemia research output at the global level to provide an accurate overview of scientific output over time and to develop future strategies for research in this area.

Methods

Search strategy

The search strategy used in this study was similar to most recent bibliometric studies from our research group (Zyoud et al. 2014a, b, c, d, 2015a, c). Data were obtained from the online version of the SciVerse Scopus. This scientific database embraces the core academic journals related to the subject of interest (Smith 2009, 2010), and it also has a high number of journals in comparison to PubMed and Web of Science (Falagas et al. 2008).

The search conducted in Scopus covered papers published during all the previous years and up to 31 December 2013 whose title included the following keywords: “methemoglobinemia”, and “methaemoglobinaemia”. The resulting search was as follows: TITLE (“methemoglobinemia”) OR TITLE (“methaemoglobinaemia”). We excluded documents that were published as an erratum.

The collected data were analysed to create the following information: year of publication, subject categories, publication counts of the journals, citations received by the publications, collaboration among different countries, assessing research in terms of the most prolific institutions, and impact factors of the publishing journals. Bibliometric indicators were presented in rank order using the standard competition ranking (Zyoud et al. 2014a, b, c, d, 2015a, c). Only the ten top-ranked were considered and interpreted. The quality of research productivity was measured using the h-index, impact factor (IF), and the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator. Impact factors were taken from the Journal Citation Report (JCR) published in 2012. SJR was taken fromthe SCImago website (Scimago 2014). The h-index was introduced by Hirsch (Hirsch 2005) as an alternative to the impact factor to characterize the significance of a scientist’s research publications. The h-index is the largest number h such that h papers have at least h citations (Hirsch 2005). For example, an h-index of eight means that the author has eight papers with at least eight citations each.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version15.0; SPSS, Chicago, IL).We used Pearson’s correlation analysis to determine significant changes in publication number over time. All data are expressed as medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) or numbers with percentages.

Results

As a result, 1770 publications were obtained. Of all the publications retrieved from the database, original articles accounted for 76.3 %, followed by letters to the editor (10.1 %), review articles (4.0 %), and others (e.g. editorial material, meeting abstract and book review; 9.7 %). Publications in the field of methaemoglobinaemia were seen as early as 1940s followed by a gradual increase that reached the maximum after 2000 (Table 1). Pearson’s correlation test showed a significant, strong positive correlation between time and number of publications (r = 0.88, P < 0.001) between 1940 and 2013. Around 33.2 % of all retrieved publications were published during 2000–2013, with a steady publication rate of around 42 documents per year overall (Table 1). The first article related to methaemoglobinaemia in Scopus was published by Carey and Wilson in The Journal of Pediatrics in 1940(Carey and Wilson 1940). The language in which the publications were written was predominantly English (n = 1264, 71.4 %), followed by French (n = 106, 6 %), German (n = 83, 4.7 %), and Spanish (n = 56, 3.2 %).
Table 1

Total number of articles included in a bibliometric analysis of worldwide publications related to methaemoglobinaemia from 1940 to 2013

Year of publication

Total n = 1770 (%)

1940–1949

29 (1.8)

1950–1959

98 (5.4)

1960–1969

218 (12.3)

1970–1979

246 (13.9)

1980–1989

276 (15.6)

1990–1999

315 (17.8)

2000–2009

389 (22.0)

2010–2013

199 (11.2)

The retrieved documents were published in 60 countries. In Table 2 we see the ten most productive countries in the field “methaemoglobinaemia”. The highest number of articles related to methaemoglobinaemia was from the USA (24.8 %), followed distantly by the UK (4.5 %), India (3.7 %), and France (3.7 %) (Table 2). Among 212 different countries or territories registered in the World Bank online database (World Bank Group 2013), 152 (71.7 %) countries had not published any independent publications related to methaemoglobinaemia.
Table 2

The top ten most productive countries with regard to publishing articles related to methaemoglobinaemia

SCRa

Countries

Total number of articles for the whole period (%)

h-index

Median (Q1–Q3) of citation

Average citation

Collaboration with other countriesb

Number (%)c of documents with international collaborationd

1st

USA

438 (24.8)

31

6 (2–12)

11.2

18

26 (5.9)

2nd

UK

79 (4.5)

14

5 (1–11)

11.5

9

11 (13.9)

3rd

India

66 (3.7)

7

1 (0.0–4)

3.3

7

7 (10.6)

3rd

France

66 (3.7)

9

1 (0.0–3.5)

3.8

2

2 (3.0)

5th

Japan

62 (3.5)

11

1 (0.0–8)

5.8

5

6 (9.7)

6th

Germany

53 (3.0)

10

1 (0.0–8.5)

4.6

3

5 (9.4)

7th

Turkey

47 (2.7)

6

1 (0.0–3.0)

2.2

2

4 (8.5)

8th

Canada

31 (1.8)

10

7 (2–15)

10.4

4

5 (16.1)

9th

Israel

24 (1.4)

9

5 (0.3–10.8)

11.3

1

1 (4.2)

10th

Australia

21 (1.2)

5

3 (0.0–5)

5.1

4

2 (9.5)

10th

Spain

21 (1.2)

5

1 (0.0–4)

4.6

2

2 (9.5)

SCR standard competition ranking, Q1Q3 lower quartile–upper quartile

aEqual countries have the same ranking number, and then a gap is left in the ranking numbers

bThe term “collaboration with other countries” refers to the number of other countries represented among authors were collaborated with authors from a particular country

cPercentage of documents with international authors out of the total number of documents for each country

dThe term “international collaboration” refers to the number of published articles from a particular country and were co-authored by researchers from multiple countries

The total number of citations at the date of data collection (30 January 2014) was 10,080, with an average of 5.7 citations per document and a median (interquartile range) of 1(0.0–6). The h-index for all publications was 40 (i.e., 40 documents had been cited at least 40 times at the date of data collection). The USA and UK had the highest h-index of 31 and 14, respectively, and six countries had an h-index of 9–14. It is notable that Canada was ranked eighth in the number of publications but fourth in h-index, and India was ranked third in the number of publications but eighth in h-index. Furthermore, Canada produced the most multinational collaborated papers out of the total number of publications for each country (16.1 %) followed by the UK (13.9 %); (Table 2).

Articles were published in 859 journals. Table 3 lists the ten most productive journals with both IF and SJR. Twenty-eight documents (1.48 %) were published in the Journal of Pediatrics, whereas 24 (1.36 %) were published in the New England Journal of Medicine, 20 (1.13 %) were published in Blood, and 20 (1.13 %) were published in Anesthesiology.
Table 3

Ranking of the top ten journals in which articles related to methaemoglobinaemia were published with their corresponding impact factors

SCRa

Journal

Frequency (%)

SJR

IF (2012)b

Subject categoriesc

1st

Journal of Pediatrics

28 (1.58)

1.2

4.035

Paediatrics

2nd

New England Journal of Medicine

24 (1.36)

10.16

51.658

Medicine, general and internal

3rd

Blood

20 (1.13)

4.55

9.060

Haematology

3rd

Anesthesiology

20 (1.13)

2.05

5.163

Anaesthesiology

5th

Pediatrics

15 (0.85)

2.54

5.119

Paediatrics

6th

Journal of Emergency Medicine

14 (0.79)

0.47

1.331

Emergency Medicine

7th

Annals of Emergency Medicine

13 (0.73)

1.4

4.285

Emergency medicine

7th

Orvosi Hetilap

13 (0.73)

0.16

NA

Medicined

9th

Annals of Pharmacotherapy

12 (0.68)

0.82

2.567

Pharmacology and pharmacy

9th

Journal of the American Medical Association

12 (0.68)

4.84

29.978

Medicine, general and internal

9th

British Medical Journal

12 (0.68)

2.327

17.215

Medicine, general and internal

9th

Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology

12 (0.68)

1.33

3.975

Pharmacology and pharmacy; toxicology

SCR standard competition ranking, SJR SCImago Journal Rank, NA not available, IF impact factor

aEqual journals have the same ranking number, and then a gap is left in the ranking numbers

bThe impact factor was reported according to the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) journal citation reports (JCR) 2012

cSubject categories were reported according to the ISI JCR 2012

dSubject categories were reported according to the SCImago Web site

The ten most cited papers of the found bibliography are presented in Table 4 (Curry 1982; Barker et al. 1989; Nilsson et al. 1990; Mansouri and Lurie 1993; Coleman and Coleman 1996; Fan and Steinberg 1996; Wright et al. 1999; Ash-Bernal et al. 2004; Fewtrell 2004; Guay 2009). According to this list, emergency medicine, environmental and toxicological aspects, and drug safety have mainly captured the attention of the researchers throughout the period of publication. The top ten institutions were ranked by the number of articles (Table 5). Among the top ten institutions, six were in the USA. All the top institutions appeared in the top ten ranking countries, except Brazil and China.
Table 4

Top ten cited documents related to methaemoglobinaemia in scopus

SCR

Authors and year of publication

Source title

Cited by

1st

Wright et al. (1999)

Annals of Emergency Medicine

250

2nd

Coleman and Coleman (1996)

Drug Safety

148

3rd

Mansouri and Lurie (1993)

American Journal of Hematology

147

4th

Fan and Steinberg (1996)

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

138

5th

Barker et al. (1989)

Anesthesiology

137

6th

Ash-Bernal et al. (2004)

Medicine

108

7th

Curry (1982)

Annals of Emergency Medicine

95

8th

Guay (2009)

Anesthesia and Analgesia

84

9th

Fewtrell (2004)

Environmental Health Perspectives

83

10th

Nilsson et al. (1990)

British Journal of Anaesthesia

79

SCR standard competition ranking

Table 5

Top ten most highly productive institutions that published articles related to methaemoglobinaemia

SCRa

Institution, country

No. of documents (%)

1st

VA Medical Center, USA

16 (0.90)

2nd

The Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), France

8 (0.45)

2nd

Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil

8 (0.45)

2nd

Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, UK

8 (0.45)

5th

Mayo Clinic, USA

7 (0.40)

5th

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, India

7 (0.40)

5th

Kyushu University, Japan

7 (0.40)

5th

University of Liverpool, UK

7 (0.40)

9th

Kanazawa University, Japan

7 (0.40)

9th

Duke University School of Medicine, USA

6 (0.34)

9th

Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, USA

6 (0.34)

9th

University of Florida, USA

6 (0.34)

9th

Hopital Edouard Herriot, France

6 (0.34)

9th

Cleveland Clinic Foundation, USA

6 (0.34)

9th

Queen’s University Belfast, UK

6 (0.34)

9th

Fuzhou General Hospital PLA Nanjing District, China

6 (0.34)

SCR standard competition ranking

aEqual institutions have the same ranking number, and then a gap is left in the ranking numbers

Discussion

In the current study, bibliometric indicators were used to evaluate the methaemoglobinaemia research output at the global level. The main strengths of this study are that it is the first bibliometric study on methaemoglobinaemia and it reveals the quantity and quality of methaemoglobinaemia-based research at the global level. In our study, publications related to methaemoglobinaemia first appeared in the 1940s and rapidly increased after 2000, with one-third of the articles (33.2 %) being published between 2000 and 2013. Scientific publications related to methaemoglobinaemia were similar to the general evolution in scientific research output observed over the last decade and especially in the last few years (Cheng and Zhang 2013; Delirrad et al. 2013; Lopez-Munoz et al. 2013; Sweileh et al. 2013; Zyoud et al. 2014a). Another aspect of interest for the current study in relation to the scientific publications related to methaemoglobinaemia is research paper quality. It should be noted that three of the top ten journals in which articles related to methaemoglobinaemia were published carry IFs greater than ten and have significant impacts in the field of medicine: New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, and British Medical Journal.

As shown in our study, the principal finding of this study is that in absolute terms of numbers of articles published in the field of methaemoglobinaemia, the USA is by far the largest contributor. This finding agrees with similar bibliometric studies (Zyoud et al. 2014b; Rymer and Choa 2015; Zyoud et al. 2015a, c). In countries such as the USA, UK, India, France, and Japan, the total output of scientific publications related to methaemoglobinaemia accounted for more than 40 % of global research output. This activity in the field of methaemoglobinaemia may be related to population size or socio-economic factors associated with these countries (Miro et al. 2009; Zyoud et al. 2015a). Furthermore, the number of active researchers, size of funding, prevalence of the disease in certain population, and research competition probably played a role in increasing the number of publications from these countries (Rahman and Fukui 2001, 2003; Man et al. 2004; Benamer and Bakoush 2009). The current study indicate that Israel and Turkey have produced the most research articles from the Middle East region, whereas India, Japan, and Australia are the major research contributors from the Asia–Pacific region, while the UK and France have produced the most research articles from Europe. The top ten most productive countries of this study comprise many countries that are familiar to other scientific productivity rankings (Essential Science Indicators 2012). We are unable to interpret these findings in light of other results, as we have not found any comparative studies. However, previous bibliometric studies have reported similar findings (Li et al. 2013; Ramos et al. 2013; Sweileh et al. 2014b).

The current study shows that the h-index of countries with a high number of internationally collaborated articles, such as the USA and the UK, is markedly higher than that of countries with a low number of internationally collaborated articles. Several studies showed that more international collaboration may lead to more influential publications due to shared research ideas and increased citations and visibility (Foley and Della Sala 2014; Freeman and Huang 2014; Li and Zhao 2015). The USA and UK achieved the highest h-index in the field of methaemoglobinaemia research, signifying a higher quality of research than other countries. The scientific research has shown an enormous interest in the h-index, as shown by the high number of publications on this subject (Wykes et al. 2013; Therattil et al. 2014; Zhang et al. 2015). The h-index allows differentiation of the scientific productivity of a researcher with objectivity and accordingly may play an important role when making decisions about awarding prizes, fund allocation, and promotion (Costas and Bordons 2007).

The articles that were published before 2000 were the most frequently cited. Articles that are highly cited are generally most read and referenced and likely to be influential publications within a particular field (Lipsman et al. 2014; Sharma and Lawrence 2014). Furthermore, that a publication is highly cited serves as an indication for its influence within a discipline (Cardona and Sanz 2014; Hsu and Ho 2014; Sharma and Lawrence 2014). The average number of citations per document obtained in our study is similar to that reported in toxicological journals but slightly less than that reported in other scientific journals (Bird 2008; Jang and Rusyniak 2011). Citations for publications in toxicology disciplines are usually low compared with those in other scientific disciplines (Zyoud et al. 2014a, c, 2015b, d).

This study has few limitations. Most were similar to recent bibliometric studies from our research group (Zyoud et al. 2014a, b, c, d, 2015a, c). First of all, some articles could not be found, mainly because the search was limited to keywords “methemoglobinemia” and “methaemoglobinaemia” in the title. Therefore, false negative results are a possibility. Additionally; the limitation of this study was in using the Scopus database alone; therefore it is possible that articles published in non-Scopus-cited journals may be missing from the analysis.

Conclusions

This bibliometric analysis provides data contributing to a better understanding of the methaemoglobinaemia research field. The number of publications on methaemoglobinaemia increased significantly after 2000. The USA was the most productive country as measured by total publications. The USA and UK achieved the highest h-index in the field of methaemoglobinaemia research, signifying a higher quality of research than other countries. The present data reveal promising progress for research activity in the field of methaemoglobinaemia. Research activity and number of publications may be greatly enhanced by committing more to international collaborative research projects related to methaemoglobinaemia.

Abbreviations

IFs: 

impact factors

JCR: 

Journal Citation Report

MetHb: 

methaemoglobin

SJR: 

SCImago Journal Rank

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

All authors were involved in drafting the article, and all authors approved the final version to be submitted for publication. SZ, SA, and WS conceptualized, designed the study, performed the statistical analyses, and drafted the manuscript. SuA, MA, and RA helped to conceptualize and design the study, and assisted in final write-up of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank An-Najah National University for providing the opportunity to access the most recent information sources such as the Scopus database.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Poison Control and Drug Information Center (PCDIC), College of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University
(2)
Department of Clinical and Community Pharmacy, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University
(3)
WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Information, National Poison Centre, University Sains Malaysia (USM)
(4)
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University
(5)
Department of Anatomy, Biochemistry and Genetics, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University

References

  1. Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Di Costa F (2009) Research collaboration and productivity: is there correlation? High Educ 57(2):155–171View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Acevedo AM, Gomez A, Becerra HA, Rios AP, Zambrano PC, Obando EP, Marti-Carvajal AJ, Carranza H, Vargas CA, Otero JM, Reveiz L, Cardona AF (2014) Distribution and trends of hematology and oncology research in Latin America: a decade of uncertainty. Cancer 120(8):1237–1245View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Ash-Bernal R, Wise R, Wright SM (2004) Acquired methemoglobinemia: a retrospective series of 138 cases at 2 teaching hospitals. Medicine (Baltimore) 83(5):265–273View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker SJ, Tremper KK, Hyatt J (1989) Effects of methemoglobinemia on pulse oximetry and mixed venous oximetry. Anesthesiology 70(1):112–117View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Benamer HT, Bakoush O (2009) Arab nations lagging behind other Middle Eastern countries in biomedical research: a comparative study. BMC Med Res Methodol 9:26View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Bird SB (2008) Journal impact factors, h indices, and citation analyses in toxicology. J Med Toxicol 4(4):261–274View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardona G, Sanz JP (2014) Citation parameters of contact lens-related articles published in the ophthalmic literature. Eye Contact Lens 40(5):301–304View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Carey BW, Wilson JL (1940) Methemoglobinemia following sulfanilamide and sulfapyridine therapy in infants and children. J Pediatr 17(1):38–43View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng T, Zhang G (2013) Worldwide research productivity in the field of rheumatology from 1996 to 2010: a bibliometric analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 52(9):1630–1634View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Coleman MD, Coleman NA (1996) Drug-induced methaemoglobinaemia. Treatment issues. Drug Saf 14(6):394–405View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Cortazzo JA, Lichtman AD (2014) Methemoglobinemia: a review and recommendations for management. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 28(4):1055–1059View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Costas R, Bordons M (2007) The h-index: advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. J Informetr 1(3):193–203View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Curry S (1982) Methemoglobinemia. Ann Emerg Med 11(4):214–221View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Delirrad M, Rashidi A, Karimi S (2013) A bibliometric analysis of toxicology publications of Iran and Turkey in ISI Web of Science. Iranian J Toxicol 6(19):735–745Google Scholar
  15. Essential Science Indicators (2012) Top 20 Countries in ALL FIELDS, 2001-August 31, 2011. http://www.archive.sciencewatch.com/dr/cou/2011/11decALL/. Accessed 20 Sept 2013
  16. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G (2008) Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J 22(2):338–342View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Fan AM, Steinberg VE (1996) Health implications of nitrate and nitrite in drinking water: an update on methemoglobinemia occurrence and reproductive and developmental toxicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 23(1 Pt 1):35–43View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Fewtrell L (2004) Drinking-water nitrate, methemoglobinemia, and global burden of disease: a discussion. Environ Health Perspect 112(14):1371–1374View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Foley JA, Della Sala S (2014) Papers from international collaborations have higher impact. Cortex 53:A1–A3View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Freeman RB, Huang W (2014) Collaboration: strength in diversity. Nature 513(7518):305View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Guay J (2009) Methemoglobinemia related to local anesthetics: a summary of 242 episodes. Anesth Analg 108(3):837–845View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(46):16569–16572View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Hsu YH, Ho YS (2014) Highly cited articles in health care sciences and services field in Science Citation Index Expanded. A bibliometric analysis for 1958–2012. Method Inf Med 53(6):446–458View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Jang DH, Rusyniak DE (2011) Hard impact: journal impact factor and JMT. J Med Toxicol 7(4):256–258View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Li W, Zhao Y (2015) Bibliometric analysis of global environmental assessment research in a 20-year period. Environ Impact Assess Rev 50:158–166View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Li BZ, Pan HF, Ye DQ (2013) A bibliometric study of literature on SLE research in PubMed (2002–2011). Lupus 22(8):772–777View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Lipsman N, Woodside DB, Lozano AM (2014) Trends in Anorexia Nervosa Research: an analysis of the top 100 most cited works. Eur Eat Disord Rev 22(1):9–14View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Lopez-Munoz F, Castle D, Shen W, Moreno R, Huelves L, Perez-Nieto M, Noriega C, Rubio G, Molina J, Alamo C (2013) The Australian contribution to the literature on atypical antipsychotic drugs: a bibliometric study. Australas Psychiatry 21(4):343–345View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Man JP, Weinkauf JG, Tsang M, Sin DD (2004) Why do some countries publish more than others? An international comparison of research funding, English proficiency and publication output in highly ranked general medical journals. Eur J Epidemiol 19(8):811–817View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Mansouri A, Lurie AA (1993) Concise review: methemoglobinemia. Am J Hematol 42(1):7–12View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Miro O, Montori E, Ramos X, Galicia M, Nogue S (2009) Trends in research activity in toxicology and by toxicologists in seven European countries. Toxicol Lett 189(1):1–4View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitsides N, Green D, Middleton R, New D, Lamerton E, Allen J, Redshaw J, Chadwick PR, Subudhi CPK, Wood G (2014) Dapsone-induced methemoglobinemia in renal transplant recipients: more prevalent than previously thought. Transpl Infect Dis 16(1):37–43View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Morimoto T, Rahman M, Fukui T (2003) International comparison of research productivity in hematology. Int J Hematol 77(2):192–195View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Nilsson A, Engberg G, Henneberg S, Danielson K, De Verdier CH (1990) Inverse relationship between age-dependent erythrocyte activity of methaemoglobin reductase and prilocaine-induced methaemoglobinaemia during infancy. Br J Anaesth 64(1):72–76View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Rahman M, Fukui T (2001) Factors related to biomedical research productivity in Asian countries. J Epidemiol 11(4):199–202View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Rahman M, Fukui T (2003) Biomedical research productivity: factors across the countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19(1):249–252View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Ramos JM, Gonzalez-Alcaide G, Bolanos-Pizarro M (2013) Bibliometric analysis of leishmaniasis research in Medline (1945–2010). Parasit Vectors 6:55View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Rymer BC, Choa RM (2015) A worldwide bibliometric analysis of published literature in plastic and reconstructive surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 68(9):1304–1308View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Scimago (2014) Scimago journal and country rank. http://www.scimagojr.com/SCImagoJournalRank.pdf. Accessed 4 Apr 2014
  40. Sharma B, Lawrence DW (2014) Top-cited articles in traumatic brain injury. Front Hum Neurosci 8:879View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Skold A, Cosco DL, Klein R (2011) Methemoglobinemia: pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. South Med J 104(11):757–761View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith DR (2009) Highly cited articles in environmental and occupational health, 1919–1960. Arch Environ Occup Health 64(Suppl 1):32–42View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith DR (2010) Identifying a set of ‘core’journals in occupational health, part 2: lists derived by bibliometric techniques. Arch Environ Occup Health 65(3):173–175View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith D (2012) Impact factors, scientometrics and the history of citation-based research. Scientometrics 92(2):419–427View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Sohn CH, Seo DW, Ryoo SM, Lee JH, Kim WY, Lim KS, Oh BJ (2014) Life-threatening methemoglobinemia after unintentional ingestion of antifreeze admixtures containing sodium nitrite in the construction sites. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 52(1):44–47View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Sweileh WM, Zyoud SH, Sawalha AF, Abu-Taha A, Hussein A, Al-Jabi SW (2013) Medical and biomedical research productivity from Palestine, 2002–2011. BMC Res Note 6:41View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Sweileh WM, Al-Jabi SW, Sawalha AF, Zyoud SH (2014a) Bibliometric analysis of nutrition and dietetics research activity in Arab countries using ISI Web of Science database. Springerplus 3:718View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Sweileh WM, Al-Jabi SW, Zyoud SH, Sawalha AF, Ghanim MA (2014b) Osteoporosis is a neglected health priority in Arab World: a comparative bibliometric analysis. Springerplus 3:427View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Sweileh WM, Al-Jabi SW, Abuzanat A, Sawalha AF, AbuTaha AS, Ghanim MA, Zyoud SH (2015a) Assessment of research productivity of Arab countries in the field of infectious diseases using Web of Science database. Infect Dis Poverty 4(1):2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Sweileh WM, Al-Jabi SW, Shanti YI, Sawalha AF, Zyoud SH (2015b) Contribution of Arab researchers to ophthalmology: a bibliometric and comparative analysis. Springerplus 4:42View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Sweileh WM, Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sawalha AF (2015c) Contribution of Arab countries to breast cancer research: comparison with non-Arab Middle Eastern countries. BMC Women Health 15:25View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Therattil PJ, Hoppe IC, Granick MS, Lee ES (2014) Application of the h-Index in academic plastic surgery. Ann Plast Surg 134(4S-1):165–166Google Scholar
  53. Wallin JA (2005) Bibliometric methods: pitfalls and possibilities. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 97(5):261–275View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Wieringa A, Bethlehem C, Hoogendoorn M, Van Der Maten J, Van Roon EN (2014) Very late recovery of dapsone-induced methemoglobinemia. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 52(1):80–81View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. World Bank Group (2013) Countries and Economies 2012. http://www.data.worldbank.org/country. Accessed 25 Nov 2013
  56. Wright RO, Lewander WJ, Woolf AD (1999) Methemoglobinemia: etiology, pharmacology, and clinical management. Ann Emerg Med 34(5):646–656View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Wykes T, Lipczynska S, Guha M (2013) The h-index, the citation rating, impact factors and the aspiring researcher. J Ment Health 22(6):467–473View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhang S, Manor B, Li L (2015) H-index is important for postural control for people with impaired foot sole sensation. PLoS One 10(3):e0121847View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi S, Sweileh W, Awang R (2014a) A bibliometric analysis of research productivity of Malaysian publications in leading toxicology journals during a 10-year period (2003–2012). Hum Exp Toxicol 33(12):1284–1293View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM (2014b) Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications on waterpipe (narghile, shisha, hookah) tobacco smoking during the period 2003–2012. Tob Induc Dis 12(1):7View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Awang R (2014c) A bibliometric analysis of toxicology research productivity in Middle Eastern Arab countries during a 10-year period (2003–2012). Health Res Policy Syst 12(1):4View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Awang R (2014d) A Scopus-based examination of tobacco use publications in Middle Eastern Arab countries during the period 2003–2012. Harm Reduct J 11:14View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM (2015a) Worldwide research productivity of paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning: a bibliometric analysis (2003–2012). Hum Exp Toxicol 34(1):12–23View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Al-Khalil S, Zyoud SH, Sawalha AF, Awang R (2015b) The Arab world’s contribution to solid waste literature: a bibliometric analysis. J Occup Med Toxicol 10:35View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Awang R, Waring WS (2015c) Bibliometric profile of the global scientific research on methanol poisoning (1902–2012). J Occup Med Toxicol 10:17View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Awang R, Waring WS (2015d) Global research productivity of N-acetylcysteine use in paracetamol overdose: a bibliometric analysis (1976–2012). Hum Exp Toxicol 34(10):1006–1016View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Zyoud et al. 2015