Research Trends of Vaccination-Related Systematic Reviews, 2011–2023: A Bibliometric Analysis
Rattachement africain : de, ch. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Systematic reviews (SRs) reflect the best available evidence for informing vaccination recommendations. This study presents a bibliometric analysis of vaccination-related SRs aiming to uncover research trends. Vaccination-related SRs published from 2011 to 2023 in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the Living Overview of Evidence database were considered. Trends over time, disease/pathogen, topic, population, geographical location, accessibility, methodological quality, and overlap were descriptively analyzed using R. A total of 2275 SRs were identified, most of which were freely accessible (n = 2083, 91.7%). The annual number of published SRs increased more than twelvefold from 2011 to 2023. COVID-19 (n = 861, 37.8%), influenza (n = 328, 14.4%), Human papillomavirus (n = 248, 10.9%), and pneumococcal disease (n = 152, 6.7%) were the most frequently addressed diseases/pathogens. Efficacy/effectiveness (n = 1066, 46.9%) and safety of vaccines (n = 812, 35.7%) were the most common topics. The methodological quality of SRs on intervention topics (n = 1376) was mostly critically low (n = 1155, 84.0%). Several SRs were identified that covered similar diseases/pathogens, topics and populations, indicating duplication and overlap, particularly for COVID-19. Our analysis showed a large increase in the number of published vaccination-related SRs. The results provide a basis for understanding the current state and priorities in vaccination research and decrease the overlap potential in newly developed SRs.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Research Trends of Vaccination-Related Systematic Reviews, 2011–2023: A Bibliometric Analysis
- Date Crossref
- 07/05/2025
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.