单个病例数据Meta分析引用情况研究

中国药物评价 ›› 2019, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (5): 330-335.

单个病例数据Meta分析引用情况研究

高亚,魏巍,罗鑫悦,杨克虎,Fujian Song,张俊华,田金徽

兰州大学循证医学中心,兰州大学循证医学中心,兰州大学第二临床医学院;兰州大学第二临床医学院,兰州大学循证医学中心,,,兰州大学循证医学中心

出版日期:2019-10-28 发布日期:2019-10-28
基金资助:
甘肃省循证医学与临床转化重点实验室开放基金(项目编号:20170203；项目名称：循证医学方法学研究)

Co-citation Analysis of Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

Evidence-Based Medicine Center,School of Basic Medical Sciences,Lanzhou University,Evidence-Based Medicine Center,School of Basic Medical Sciences,Lanzhou University,The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University,Evidence-Based Medicine Center,School of Basic Medical Sciences,Lanzhou University,,,Evidence-Based Medicine Center,School of Basic Medical Sciences,Lanzhou University

Online:2019-10-28 Published:2019-10-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的：研究单个病例数据Meta分析（individual patient data meta analysis，IPDMA)引用情况，以期了解目前IPDMA研究的发展趋势，为学者开展相关研究提供借鉴和参考。方法：通过检索Web of Science 获取IPDMA文献引用的相关信息。用VOSviewer 1.6.10软件对纳入研究的共被引期刊、作者和文献进行提取，并生成作者合作网络图和期刊密度图。采用CiteSpace V软件生成共被引文献网络图，并进行共被引文献的突发性检测。结果：共纳入IPDMA研究552篇，共被引次数最多的期刊为Lancet (1 192次)，前20个期刊中，6个来自英国，14个来自美国，前10位期刊中，有7个期刊的影响因子大于18.000。共有12 950个共被引作者，Higgins JPT是共被引次数最多的作者，但只有3.28%的作者共被引次数超过5次。主要共被引作者形成6个合作团体，且各团体内部成员之间合作紧密。前10位共被引的文献大部分为IPDMA方法学论文，其中Higgins JPT等2003年发表于BMJ论文共被引次数最高。结论：期刊的共被引次数之间存在较大差异，高被引的期刊数量较少。虽然共被引作者很多，但缺乏突出贡献的作者。

关键词: 单个病例数据Meta分析, 共被引, VOSviewer软件, CiteSpace软件

Abstract: Objective： To analysis the citations of individual patient data meta-analysis(IPDMA)， in order to understand the current development trend and citation of IPDMA， and provide reference for scholars. Methods： The citation information of IPDMAs were obtained by searching Web of Science. Co-cited journals， co-cited authors， and co-cited references were extracted using VOSviewer 1.6.10 software， and the author''s collaborative network map and journal density map were generated. The CiteSpace V software was used to generate a co-cited reference network map， and to detect references with citation burst. Results：A total of 552 IPDMA studies were included. The most co-cited journal was Lancet (1 192). Of the top 20 co-cited journals， 6 were from the United Kingdom， 14 were from the United States. Of the top 10 co-cited journals， the impact factors of 7 journals were greater than 18.000. A total of 12 950 co-cited authors， Higgins JPT was the most co-cited author， but only 3.28% the authors have been cited more than 5 times. A total of six cooperative groups were formed by the authors， and the internal members of each group worked closely together. Most of the top 10 co-cited papers were methodological articles of IPDMA, Higgins JPT′s paper was published in BMJ in 2003, which was the highest number of co-citations article. Conclusion： There are large differences in the number of co-cited journals， and the number of highly co-cited journals is small. Although there are many co-cited authors， no authors have made outstanding contributions.

Key words: Individual patient data meta-analysis(IPDMA), Co-citation, VOSviewer, CiteSpace

高亚, 魏巍, 罗鑫悦, 杨克虎, Fujian Song, 张俊华, 田金徽. 单个病例数据Meta分析引用情况研究[J]. 中国药物评价, 2019, 36(5): 330-335.

参考文献

[1]Veroniki AA， Straus SE， Soobiah C， et al. A scoping review of indirect comparison methods and applications using individual patient data[J]. BMC Med Res Methodol，2016，16：47. [2]Riley RD， Lambert PC， Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data： rationale， conduct， and reporting[J]. BMJ，2010，340：c221. [3]Simmonds M， Stewart G， Stewart L. A decade of individual participant data meta-analyses： a review of current practice[J]. Contemp Clin Trials，2015，45(Pt A)：76-83. [4]Tierney JF， Vale C， Riley R， et al. Individual participant data (IPD) Meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials： Guidance on their use[J]. PLoS Med，2015，12(7)： e1001855. [5]Crowther CA， Middleton PF， Voysey M， et al. Assessing the neuroprotective benefits for babies of antenatal magnesium sulphate： An individual participant data meta-analysis[J]. PLoS Medicine，2017，14(10)：e1002398. [6]Vale CL， Rydzewska LH， Rovers MM， et al. Uptake of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on individual participant data in clinical practice guidelines： descriptive study[J]. BMJ，2015，350：h1088. [7]田金徽， Fujian Song，杨克虎，等.单个病例数据Meta分析的起源与发展[J]. 中国药物评价，2019，36(4)：241-244. [8]田金徽，杨克虎，Fujian Song，等.单个病例数据Meta分析研究现状[J]. 中国药物评价，2019，36(4)：245-251. [9]Gao Y， Shi S， Ma W， et al. Bibliometric analysis of global research on PD-1 and PD-L1 in the field of cancer[J]. Int Immunopharmacol，2019，72：374-384. [10]高亚，李沐阳，孙月，等.证据图研究合作能力与研究主题分析[J]. 中国药物评价，2019，36(3)：165-168. [11]Gao Y， Ge L， Shi S， et al. Global trends and future prospects of e-waste research： a bibliometric analysis[J]. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int，2019，26(17)：17809-17820. [12]康迎英，张福利，蔡润津，等.基于VOSviewer 国外医药卫生领域计算机辅助教学研究计量学分析[J]. 中国医药导刊，2019，21(3)：181-187. [13]Liang YD， Li Y， Zhao J， et al. Study of acupuncture for low back pain in recent 20 years： a bibliometric analysis via CiteSpace[J]. J Pain Res，2017，10：951-964. [14]Higgins JP， Thompson SG， Deeks JJ， et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses[J]. BMJ，2003，327(7414)：557-560. [15]Higgins JP， Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis[J]. Stat Med，2002，21(11)：1539-1558 [16]Simmonds MC， Higgins JP， Stewart LA， et al. Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials： a review of methods used in practice[J]. Clin Trial，2005，2(3)：209-217. [17]Chen CM， Dubin R， Kim MC， et al. Orphan drugs and rare diseases： a scientometric review (2000-2014)[J]. Expert Opin Orphan Drugs，2014，2(7)：709-724. [18]Stewart LA， Parmar MK. Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data： is there a difference[J]. Lancet，1993，341(8842)：418-422. [19]Stewart LA， Clarke MJ. Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data[J]. Stat Med，1995，14(19)：2057-2079. [20]Stewart LA， Clarke M， Rovers M， et al. Preferred reporting Items for systematic review and meta-analyses of individual participant data： the PRISMA-IPD Statement[J]. JAMA，2015，313(16)：1657-1665.