4.6 Article

Tularemia research activity: a bibliometric analysis between 1980 and 2020

Journal

INFECTION
Volume 50, Issue 6, Pages 1507-1515

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s15010-022-01837-4

Keywords

Tularemia; Francisella tularensis; Bibliometrics; Publications

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study analyzed publications on tularemia between 1980 and 2020. The findings showed an increasing trend in research productivity on tularemia, with high-income countries, particularly the USA, contributing significantly.
Introduction Tularemia disease attracts attention as an important contagious zoonosis that has increased its impact in recent years. The aim of the study is to analyze the publications on tularemia between 1980 and 2020. Methods We performed literature retrieval in the Web of Science (WoS) on 22 September 2021. Search terms were Francisella tularensis and Tularemia in the article title for the period between January 1980 and December 2020. We determined the number of articles, keywords, countries, authors, and institutions for each publication. We visualized the data with the VOS viewer tool. Results After all inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied finally, 1688 articles were analyzed. The number of articles has increased in recent years. The three most productive countries in tularemia were the USA (777 articles 46.03%), Sweden (113 articles 6.69%), and Turkey (95 articles, 5.63%). Most of the articles were from the journal of Infection and Immunity (II), Plos one, Journal of Clinical Microbiology (JCM), Emerging Infectious Diseases (EID), and Vaccine. Sjostedt A. and Umea University-Sweden were the most influential author and institution. Conclusions Productivity trend has been shown to increase in tularemia. High-income countries had a great influence on the literature in the field. Publications from the USA were in a high percentage among all articles. Related work may lead to the future direction of this dossier in the next years.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available