Publication trends of research on COVID-19 and host immune response: A bibliometric analysis

Introduction As the first bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 and immune responses, this study will provide a comprehensive overview of the latest research advances. We attempt to summarize the scientific productivity and cooperation across countries and institutions using the bibliometric methodology. Meanwhile, using clustering analysis of keywords, we revealed the evolution of research hotspots and predicted future research focuses, thereby providing valuable information for the follow-up studies. Methods We selected publications on COVID-19 and immune response using our pre-designed search strategy. Web of Science was applied to screen the eligible publications for subsequent bibliometric analyses. GraphPad Prism 8.0, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace were applied to analyze the research trends and compared the contributions of countries, authors, institutions, and journals to the global publications in this field. Results We identified 2,200 publications on COVID-19 and immune response published between December 1, 2019, and April 25, 2022, with a total of 3,154 citations. The United States (611), China (353), and Germany (209) ranked the top three in terms of the number of publications, accounting for 53.3% of the total articles. Among the top 15 institutions publishing articles in this area, four were from France, four were from the United States, and three were from China. The journal Frontiers in Immunology published the most articles (178) related to COVID-19 and immune response. Alessandro Sette (31 publications) from the United States were the most productive and influential scholar in this field, whose publications with the most citation frequency (3,633). Furthermore, the development and evaluation of vaccines might become a hotspot in relevant scope. Conclusions The United States makes the most indispensable contribution in this field in terms of publication numbers, total citations, and H-index. Although publications from China also take the lead regarding quality and quantity, their international cooperation and preclinical research need to be further strengthened. Regarding the citation frequency and the total number of published articles, the latest research progress might be tracked in the top-ranking journals in this field. By analyzing the chronological order of the appearance of retrieved keywords, we speculated that vaccine-related research might be the novel focus in this field.

Global Research Status of Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome During 2001-2021: A 20-Year Bibliometric Analysis.

Background: Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome (MODS) is a major cause of high morbidity and mortality among patients in intensive care units (ICU). Although numerous basic and clinical researches on MODS have been conducted, there is still a long way to go to prevent patients from entering this stage. To our knowledge, no bibliometric analyses of MODS have been reported, this study, therefore, was conducted to reveal MODS research status and trends during 2001-2021. Methods: All relevant literature covering MODS during 2001-2021 were extracted from Web of Science. An online analysis platform of literature metrology was used to analyze the publication trends. VOSviewer software was used to collect and analyze the keywords and research hotspots related to MODS. Results: As of July 31, 2021, a total of 994 MODS-related articles from 2001 to 2021 were identified. The United States accounted for the largest number of publications (31.1%), followed by China and Germany, with 186 and 75 publications, respectively. Among all the institutions, the University of Pittsburgh published the most papers related to MODS (21). Critical Care Medicine published the most papers in this field (106). Professor Moore EE, who had the most citation frequency (1847), made great achievements in MODS research. Moreover, analysis of the keywords identified three MODS research hotspot clusters: "mechanism-related research," "clinical research," and "diagnostic research." Conclusions: The United States maintained a top position worldwide and made the most outstanding contribution in the MODS field. In terms of publication, China was next only to the United States, but there was a disproportion between the quantity of publications and citation frequency. The institution University of Pittsburgh and journal Critical Care Medicine represent the highest level of research in this field. During the 20 years from 2001 to 2021, basic MODS research has been in-depth yet progressed relatively slowly recently, but the outbreak of COVID-19 has to some extent set off an upsurge of clinical research in MODS field.

Psychological impact in non-infectious disease specialists who had direct contact with patients with COVID-19

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has become a pandemic. Obstetricians and midwives, among other medical staff, are tackling COVID-19 and are under immense psychological stress. Aims We aimed to survey the mental health of non-infectious disease specialist staff, specifically obstetricians and midwives, working in officially designated hospitals treating patients with COVID-19. Method: A nationwide online survey was conducted from 7 March to 17 March 2020 investigating the mental health of obstetricians and midwives (who were not themselves infected with COVID-19) working in hospitals treating patients with COVID-19. We used the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scale and the 7-item Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) to assess their symptoms of depression, anxiety and insomnia. Results: A total of 885 (41.6%), 609 (28.6%) and 729 (34.3%) obstetricians and midwives reported depression (PHQ-9 >= 5), anxiety (GAD-7 >= 5) and insomnia (ISI >= 8), respectively, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Regardless of whether or not they had direct contact with patients with COVID-19, obstetricians and midwives were more likely to report mild and moderate depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared with before the pandemic. Those who had direct contact with patients with COVID-19 were more likely to report depression and insomnia than those who did not. Those who had sufficient protective equipment or training were less likely to report depression, anxiety and insomnia than those who did not. Conclusions: Our data suggest that non-infectious disease specialist staff have experienced varying, but increased levels of depression, anxiety and insomnia during this COVID-19 pandemic, which could be reduced by sufficient levels of protective equipment and occupational COVID-19 workplace training. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)