Worldwide research productivity in the field of electronic cigarette: a bibliometric analysis

BMC Public Health

Waleed M Sweileh³  Samah W Al-Jabi¹  Sa’ed H Zyoud² 

[1] Department of Clinical and Community Pharmacy, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine;WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Information, National Poison Centre, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang, Malaysia;Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine

关键词: Scopus;    E-Cigarette;    Electronic cigarette;    Bibliometric;   

Others  :  866332
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-667

 received in 2013-12-06, accepted in 2014-06-25,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Electronic cigarette (EC) is an emerging phenomenon that is becoming increasingly popular with smokers worldwide. There is a lack of data concerning the evaluation of research productivity in the field of EC originating from the world. The main objectives of this study were to analyse worldwide research output in EC field, and to examine the authorship pattern and the citations retrieved from the Scopus database.

Methods

Data were searched for documents with specific words regarding EC as “keywords” in the title. Scientific output was evaluated based on the methodology developed and used in other bibliometric studies by investigation: (a) total and trends of contributions in EC research during all previous years up to the date of data analysis (June 13, 2014); (b) authorship patterns and research productivity; (c) countries contribution; and (d) citations received by the publications.

Results

Three hundred and fifty-six documents were retrieved comprising 31.5% original journal articles, 16% letters to the editor, 7.9% review articles, and 44.6% documents that were classified as other types of publications, such as notes or editorials or opinions. The retrieved documents were published in 162 peer-reviewed journals. All retrieved documents were published from 27 countries. the largest number of publications in the field of EC was from the United States of America (USA); (33.7%), followed by the United Kingdom (UK); (11.5%), and Italy (8.1%). The total number of citations at the time of data analysis was 2.277, with an average of 6.4 citations per document and median (interquartile range) of 0.0 (0.0–5.0). The h-index of the retrieved documents was 27. The most productive institutions were Food and Drug Administration, USA (4.2% of total publications) followed by Universita degli Studi di Catania, Italy (3.9%), University of California, San Francisco, USA (3.7%).

Conclusions

This bibliometric study is a testament to the progress in EC research from the world over the last few years. More effort is needed to bridge the gap in EC-based research and to promote better evaluation of EC, risks, health effects, or control services worldwide.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Zyoud et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]World Health Organization: WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2011: warning about the dangers of tobacco. 2011. [cited 2013 23, September]; Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789240687813_eng.pdf webcite
• [2]Caponnetto P, Campagna D, Papale G, Russo C, Polosa R: The emerging phenomenon of electronic cigarettes. Expert Rev Respir Med 2012, 6(1):63-74.
• [3]Capasso L, Gualano MR, Flacco ME, Siliquini R, Manzoli L: E-cigarette regulations in Italy: fluctuating and confusing. Lancet 2014, 383(9932):1883.
• [4]Wagener TL, Siegel M, Borrelli B: Electronic cigarettes: achieving a balanced perspective. Addiction 2012, 107(9):1545-1548.
• [5]Polosa R, Caponnetto P, Morjaria JB, Papale G, Campagna D, Russo C: Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e-Cigarette) on smoking reduction and cessation: a prospective 6-month pilot study. BMC Public Health 2011, 11:786.
• [6]Etter JF: Electronic cigarettes: a survey of users. BMC Public Health 2010, 10:231.
• [7]Farsalinos KE, Stimson GV: Is there any legal and scientific basis for classifying electronic cigarettes as medications? Int J Drug Policy 2014, 25(3):340-345.
• [8]Henningfield JE, Zaatari GS: Electronic nicotine delivery systems: emerging science foundation for policy. Tob Control 2010, 19(2):89-90.
• [9]Harrell PT, Simmons VN, Correa JB, Padhya TA, Brandon TH: Electronic nicotine delivery systems (“E-cigarettes”): review of safety and smoking cessation efficacy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surgin press
• [10]Devos P: Research and bibliometrics: a long history. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2011, 35(5):336-337.
• [11]Huggett S: Journal bibliometrics indicators and citation ethics: a discussion of current issues. Atherosclerosis 2013, 230(2):275-277.
• [12]Hunter PR: Bibliometrics, research quality, and neglected tropical diseases. Lancet 2009, 373(9664):630-631.
• [13]Royle P, Kandala NB, Barnard K, Waugh N: Bibliometrics of systematic reviews: analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors. Syst Rev 2013, 2(1):74.
• [14]Stidham RW, Sauder K, Higgins PD: Using bibliometrics to advance your academic career. Gastroenterology 2012, 143(3):520-523.
• [15]Webster NR: Bibliometrics and assessing performance and worth. Br J Anaesth 2011, 107(3):306-307.
• [16]Weightman AL, Butler CC: Using bibliometrics to define the quality of primary care research. BMJ 2011, 342:d1083.
• [17]Sweileh WM, Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sawalha AF: Assessing urology and nephrology research activity in Arab countries using ISI web of science bibliometric database. BMC Res Notes 2014, 7:258.
• [18]Garcia-Lopez JA: Bibliometric analysis of Spanish scientific publications on tobacco use during the period 1970–1996. Eur J Epidemiol 1999, 15(1):23-28.
• [19]Cohen JE, Chaiton MO, Planinac LC: Taking stock a bibliometric analysis of the focus of tobacco research from the 1980s to the 2000s. Am J Prev Med 2010, 39(4):352-356.
• [20]Warner KE, Tam J, Koltun SM: Growth in tobacco control publications by authors from low- and middle-income countries. Tob Control 2014, 23(3):231-237.
• [21]Kira A, Glover M, Bullen C, Viehbeck S: Publications as an indicator of increased tobacco control research productivity (quantity and quality) in New Zealand. Nicotine Tob Res 2011, 13(6):474-478.
• [22]Nykiforuk CI, Osler GE, Viehbeck S: The evolution of smoke-free spaces policy literature: a bibliometric analysis. Health Policy 2010, 97(1):1-7.
• [23]Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM: Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications on waterpipe (narghile, shisha, hookah) tobacco smoking during the period 2003–2012. Tob Induc Dis 2014, 12(1):7.
• [24]Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Awang R: A Scopus-based examination of tobacco use publications in Middle Eastern Arab countries during the period 2003–2012. Harm Reduct J 2014, 11(1):14.
• [25]De Battisti F, Salini S: Robust analysis of bibliometric data. Stat Meth Appl 2013, 22(2):269-283.
• [26]Wallin JA: Bibliometric methods: pitfalls and possibilities. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2005, 97(5):261-275.
• [27]Scopus: SciVerse Scopus fact sheet. SciVerse® Scopus. 2013. [cited 2013 14, September]; Available from: http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/scopus webcite
• [28]Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G: Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J 2008, 22(2):338-342.
• [29]Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM: Worldwide research productivity of paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning: a bibliometric analysis (2003–2012). Hum Exp Toxicolin press
• [30]Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Awang R: A bibliometric analysis of toxicology research productivity in Middle Eastern Arab countries during a 10-year period (2003–2012). Health Res Policy Syst 2014, 12(1):4.
• [31]Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Awang R: A bibliometric analysis of research productivity of Malaysian publications in leading toxicology journals during a 10-year period (2003–2012). Hum Exp Toxicolin press
• [32]Hirsch JE: An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005, 102(46):16569-16572.
• [33]Meho LI, Rogers Y: Citation counting, citation ranking, and h‒index of human‒computer interaction researchers: a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2008, 59(11):1711-1726.
• [34]Smith DR: Identifying a set of ‘core’journals in occupational health, part 2: lists derived by bibliometric techniques. Arch Environ Occup Health 2010, 65(3):173-175.
• [35]Ayers JW, Ribisl KM, Brownstein JS: Tracking the rise in popularity of electronic nicotine delivery systems (electronic cigarettes) using search query surveillance. Am J Prev Med 2011, 40(4):448-453.
• [36]Bullen C, McRobbie H, Thornley S, Glover M, Lin R, Laugesen M: Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e cigarette) on desire to smoke and withdrawal, user preferences and nicotine delivery: randomised cross-over trial. Tob Control 2010, 19(2):98-103.
• [37]Cahn Z, Siegel M: Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control: a step forward or a repeat of past mistakes? J Public Health Policy 2011, 32(1):16-31.
• [38]Eissenberg T: Electronic nicotine delivery devices: ineffective nicotine delivery and craving suppression after acute administration. Tob Control 2010, 19(1):87-88.
• [39]Etter JF, Bullen C: Electronic cigarette: users profile, utilization, satisfaction and perceived efficacy. Addiction 2011, 106(11):2017-2028.
• [40]Siegel MB, Tanwar KL, Wood KS: Electronic cigarettes as a smoking-cessation tool: results from an online survey. Am J Prev Med 2011, 40(4):472-475.
• [41]Trtchounian A, Williams M, Talbot P: Conventional and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have different smoking characteristics. Nicotine Tob Res 2010, 12(9):905-912.
• [42]Vansickel AR, Cobb CO, Weaver MF, Eissenberg TE: A clinical laboratory model for evaluating the acute effects of electronic “cigarettes”: nicotine delivery profile and cardiovascular and subjective effects. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010, 19(8):1945-1953.
• [43]Mayer B: How much nicotine kills a human? Tracing back the generally accepted lethal dose to dubious self-experiments in the nineteenth century. Arch Toxicol 2014, 88(1):5-7.
• [44]Falagas ME, Karavasiou AI, Bliziotis IA: A bibliometric analysis of global trends of research productivity in tropical medicine. Acta Trop 2006, 99(2–3):155-159.
• [45]de Granda-Orive JI, Alonso-Arroyo A, Roig-Vazquez F: Which data base should we use for our literature analysis? Web of Science versus SCOPUS. Arch Bronconeumol 2011, 47(4):213.
• [46]Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW: Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 2009, 302(10):1092-1096.
• [47]Tadmouri GO, Bissar-Tadmouri N: A major pitfall in the search strategy on PubMed. Saudi Med J 2004, 25(1):7-10.
• [48]Miro O, Montori E, Ramos X, Galicia M, Nogue S: Trends in research activity in toxicology and by toxicologists in seven European countries. Toxicol Lett 2009, 189(1):1-4.
• [49]Essential Science Indicators: Top 20 countries in ALL FIELDS, 2001-August 31, 2011. 2012. [cited 2013 20, September]; Available from: http://archive.sciencewatch.com/dr/cou/2011/11decALL/ webcite
• [50]Pauly J, Li Q, Barry MB: Tobacco-free electronic cigarettes and cigars deliver nicotine and generate concern. Tob Control 2007, 16(5):357.
• [51]Luo C, Zheng X, Zeng DD, Leischow S, Cui K, Zhang Z, He S: Portrayal of electronic cigarettes on YouTube. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2013, 8040:1-6.
• [52]Etter JF, Bullen C, Flouris AD, Laugesen M, Eissenberg T: Electronic nicotine delivery systems: a research agenda. Tob Control 2011, 20(3):243-248.
• [53]Oncology TL: Time for e-cigarette regulation. Lancet Oncol 2013, 14(11):1027.
• [54]World Health Organization: Questions and answers on electronic cigarettes or electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). 2013. [cited 2013 8, November]; Available from: http://www.who.int/tobacco/communications/statements/eletronic_cigarettes/en/index.html webcite
• [55]Polosa R, Caponnetto P: Time for evidence-based e-cigarette regulation. Lancet Oncol 2013, 14(13):e582-e583.
• [56]Farsalinos KE, Polosa R: Safety evaluation and risk assessment of electronic cigarettes as tobacco cigarette substitutes: a systematic review. Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety 2014, 5(2):67-86.