Systematic review of bibliometric studies on SARS-CoV-2
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Revista Ciências em Saúde |
Texto Completo: | https://portalrcs.hcitajuba.org.br/index.php/rcsfmit_zero/article/view/1023 |
Resumo: | Objective: To perform a systematic review of articles that evaluated the scientific production on SARS-CoV-2 through bibliometric analyzes. Methods: Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were used. After applying the pre-established inclusion criteria, 30 articles were included. Results. The total number of articles found in the bibliometric studies on SARS-CoV-2 varied widely from 153 to 21,395 articles and an average equal to 4,279 (± 5,510). A total of 17 countries published within the scope of this study, but only six published more than one article, emphasizing authors from Chinese institutions (17%). Scopus was the most used database in bibliometric studies (50%, n = 15). The articles used 72 different keywords with emphasis on: COVID-19 (15%), SARS-CoV-2 (12%) and 2019-nCoV (9%). Conclusion. We are facing an unprecedented scenario of information about SARS-CoV-2 and this has required a collective scientific effort reflected in the daily publication of hundreds of studies (articles, pre-prints, clinical guides, protocols). Bibliometric methods are being increasingly used by the scientific community to systematize this information. Therefore, the systematic review carried out in this study provided an overview of the bibliometric literature on the SARS-CoV-2 virus. |
id |
RCS_6934270ce97a461bc0e97c8cce26c9db |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.portalrcs.hcitajuba.org.br:article/1023 |
network_acronym_str |
RCS |
network_name_str |
Revista Ciências em Saúde |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Systematic review of bibliometric studies on SARS-CoV-2Revisão sistemática dos estudos bibliométricos sobre SARS-CoV-2bibliometryCOVID-19coronavirusresearch2019-nCoV epidemicCoronavirusBibliometrybibliometriaepidemia por 2019-nCoVCOVID-19coronaviruspesquisaCoronavirusBibliometriaObjective: To perform a systematic review of articles that evaluated the scientific production on SARS-CoV-2 through bibliometric analyzes. Methods: Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were used. After applying the pre-established inclusion criteria, 30 articles were included. Results. The total number of articles found in the bibliometric studies on SARS-CoV-2 varied widely from 153 to 21,395 articles and an average equal to 4,279 (± 5,510). A total of 17 countries published within the scope of this study, but only six published more than one article, emphasizing authors from Chinese institutions (17%). Scopus was the most used database in bibliometric studies (50%, n = 15). The articles used 72 different keywords with emphasis on: COVID-19 (15%), SARS-CoV-2 (12%) and 2019-nCoV (9%). Conclusion. We are facing an unprecedented scenario of information about SARS-CoV-2 and this has required a collective scientific effort reflected in the daily publication of hundreds of studies (articles, pre-prints, clinical guides, protocols). Bibliometric methods are being increasingly used by the scientific community to systematize this information. Therefore, the systematic review carried out in this study provided an overview of the bibliometric literature on the SARS-CoV-2 virus.Objetivo: Realizar uma revisão sistemática de artigos que avaliaram a produção científica sobre SARS-CoV-2 por meio de análises bibliométricas. Métodos: Foram utilizados os bancos de dados Scopus, Web of Science e Google Scholar. Após a aplicação dos critérios de inclusão pré-estabelecidos, 30 artigos foram incluídos. Resultados. A quantidade total de artigos encontrados nos estudos bibliométricos sobre SARS-CoV-2 apresentou uma grande variação de 153 a 21.395 artigos e uma média igual a 4.279 (± 5.510). Um total de 17 países publicaram no escopo deste estudo, mas apenas seis publicaram mais de um artigo, com destaque para autores de instituições chinesas (17%). Scopus foi o banco de dados mais utilizado nos estudos bibliométricos (50%, n = 15). Os artigos usaram 72 palavras-chave diferentes com destaque para: COVID-19 (15%), SARS-CoV-2 (12%) e 2019-nCoV (9%).Conclusão. Estamos diante de um cenário sem precedentes de informações acerca do SARS-CoV-2 e isso tem exigido um esforço científico coletivo que se reflete na publicação diária de centenas de estudos (artigos, pré-impressões, guias clínicos, protocolos). Os métodos bibliométricos são sendo cada vez mais utilizados pela comunidade científica para sistematizar essas informações. Assim sendo, a revisão sistemática realizada nesse estudo permitiu fornecer uma visão geral da literatura bibliométrica sobre o vírus SARS-CoV-2.AISI/HCI2020-09-24info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPeer reviewedAvaliado pelos paresapplication/pdftext/xmlhttps://portalrcs.hcitajuba.org.br/index.php/rcsfmit_zero/article/view/102310.21876/rcshci.v10i3.1023Revista Ciências em Saúde; v. 10 n. 3 (2020): Julho a Setembro de 2020; 116-125Health Sciences Journal; Vol 10 No 3 (2020): July to September 2020; 116-1252236-378510.21876/rcshci.v10i3reponame:Revista Ciências em Saúdeinstname:Hospital de Clínicas de Itajubáinstacron:HCIenghttps://portalrcs.hcitajuba.org.br/index.php/rcsfmit_zero/article/view/1023/568https://portalrcs.hcitajuba.org.br/index.php/rcsfmit_zero/article/view/1023/571Copyright (c) 2020 REVISTA CIÊNCIAS EM SAÚDEhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSilva, Thainá FerreiraMelo, Amanda Alves deSantos, Dener Lucas Araújo dosVaz, Elisa CarvalhoCorvalan, Leonardo Carlos JeronimoRibeiro, Marcela de LacerdaRodrigues, Flávia Melo2020-11-09T02:58:36Zoai:ojs.portalrcs.hcitajuba.org.br:article/1023Revistahttps://portalrcs.hcitajuba.org.br/index.php/rcsfmit_zeroPUBhttps://portalrcs.hcitajuba.org.br/index.php/rcsfmit_zero/oaircs@hcitajuba.org.br||rcsfmit@medicinaitajuba.com.br2236-37852236-3785opendoar:2020-11-09T02:58:36Revista Ciências em Saúde - Hospital de Clínicas de Itajubáfalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Systematic review of bibliometric studies on SARS-CoV-2 Revisão sistemática dos estudos bibliométricos sobre SARS-CoV-2 |
title |
Systematic review of bibliometric studies on SARS-CoV-2 |
spellingShingle |
Systematic review of bibliometric studies on SARS-CoV-2 Silva, Thainá Ferreira bibliometry COVID-19 coronavirus research 2019-nCoV epidemic Coronavirus Bibliometry bibliometria epidemia por 2019-nCoV COVID-19 coronavirus pesquisa Coronavirus Bibliometria |
title_short |
Systematic review of bibliometric studies on SARS-CoV-2 |
title_full |
Systematic review of bibliometric studies on SARS-CoV-2 |
title_fullStr |
Systematic review of bibliometric studies on SARS-CoV-2 |
title_full_unstemmed |
Systematic review of bibliometric studies on SARS-CoV-2 |
title_sort |
Systematic review of bibliometric studies on SARS-CoV-2 |
author |
Silva, Thainá Ferreira |
author_facet |
Silva, Thainá Ferreira Melo, Amanda Alves de Santos, Dener Lucas Araújo dos Vaz, Elisa Carvalho Corvalan, Leonardo Carlos Jeronimo Ribeiro, Marcela de Lacerda Rodrigues, Flávia Melo |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Melo, Amanda Alves de Santos, Dener Lucas Araújo dos Vaz, Elisa Carvalho Corvalan, Leonardo Carlos Jeronimo Ribeiro, Marcela de Lacerda Rodrigues, Flávia Melo |
author2_role |
author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Silva, Thainá Ferreira Melo, Amanda Alves de Santos, Dener Lucas Araújo dos Vaz, Elisa Carvalho Corvalan, Leonardo Carlos Jeronimo Ribeiro, Marcela de Lacerda Rodrigues, Flávia Melo |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
bibliometry COVID-19 coronavirus research 2019-nCoV epidemic Coronavirus Bibliometry bibliometria epidemia por 2019-nCoV COVID-19 coronavirus pesquisa Coronavirus Bibliometria |
topic |
bibliometry COVID-19 coronavirus research 2019-nCoV epidemic Coronavirus Bibliometry bibliometria epidemia por 2019-nCoV COVID-19 coronavirus pesquisa Coronavirus Bibliometria |
description |
Objective: To perform a systematic review of articles that evaluated the scientific production on SARS-CoV-2 through bibliometric analyzes. Methods: Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were used. After applying the pre-established inclusion criteria, 30 articles were included. Results. The total number of articles found in the bibliometric studies on SARS-CoV-2 varied widely from 153 to 21,395 articles and an average equal to 4,279 (± 5,510). A total of 17 countries published within the scope of this study, but only six published more than one article, emphasizing authors from Chinese institutions (17%). Scopus was the most used database in bibliometric studies (50%, n = 15). The articles used 72 different keywords with emphasis on: COVID-19 (15%), SARS-CoV-2 (12%) and 2019-nCoV (9%). Conclusion. We are facing an unprecedented scenario of information about SARS-CoV-2 and this has required a collective scientific effort reflected in the daily publication of hundreds of studies (articles, pre-prints, clinical guides, protocols). Bibliometric methods are being increasingly used by the scientific community to systematize this information. Therefore, the systematic review carried out in this study provided an overview of the bibliometric literature on the SARS-CoV-2 virus. |
publishDate |
2020 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-09-24 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Peer reviewed Avaliado pelos pares |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://portalrcs.hcitajuba.org.br/index.php/rcsfmit_zero/article/view/1023 10.21876/rcshci.v10i3.1023 |
url |
https://portalrcs.hcitajuba.org.br/index.php/rcsfmit_zero/article/view/1023 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.21876/rcshci.v10i3.1023 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://portalrcs.hcitajuba.org.br/index.php/rcsfmit_zero/article/view/1023/568 https://portalrcs.hcitajuba.org.br/index.php/rcsfmit_zero/article/view/1023/571 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2020 REVISTA CIÊNCIAS EM SAÚDE https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2020 REVISTA CIÊNCIAS EM SAÚDE https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf text/xml |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
AISI/HCI |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
AISI/HCI |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista Ciências em Saúde; v. 10 n. 3 (2020): Julho a Setembro de 2020; 116-125 Health Sciences Journal; Vol 10 No 3 (2020): July to September 2020; 116-125 2236-3785 10.21876/rcshci.v10i3 reponame:Revista Ciências em Saúde instname:Hospital de Clínicas de Itajubá instacron:HCI |
instname_str |
Hospital de Clínicas de Itajubá |
instacron_str |
HCI |
institution |
HCI |
reponame_str |
Revista Ciências em Saúde |
collection |
Revista Ciências em Saúde |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Ciências em Saúde - Hospital de Clínicas de Itajubá |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
rcs@hcitajuba.org.br||rcsfmit@medicinaitajuba.com.br |
_version_ |
1797068962823929856 |