English   español  
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/161598
logo share SHARE logo core CORE   Add this article to your Mendeley library MendeleyBASE

Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL
Exportar a otros formatos:


The global research collaboration of network meta-analysis: A social network analysis

AuthorsLi, Lun; Catalá-López, Ferrán; Alonso-Arroyo, Adolfo; Aleixandre-Benavent, Rafael
Issue Date2016
PublisherPublic Library of Science
CitationPLoS ONE 1189): e0163239 (2016)
Abstract[Background and Objective]: Research collaborations in biomedical research have evolved over time. No studies have addressed research collaboration in network meta-analysis (NMA). In this study, we used social network analysis methods to characterize global collaboration patterns of published NMAs over the past decades. [Methods]: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched (at 9 July, 2015) to include systematic reviews incorporating NMA. Two reviewers independently selected studies and cross-checked the standardized data. Data was analyzed using Ucinet 6.0 and SPSS 17.0. NetDraw software was used to draw social networks. [Results]: 771 NMAs published in 336 journals from 3459 authors and 1258 institutions in 49 countries through the period 1997-2015 were included. More than three-quarters (n = 625; 81.06%) of the NMAs were published in the last 5-years. The BMJ (4.93%), Current Medical Research and Opinion (4.67%) and PLOS One (4.02%) were the journals that published the greatest number of NMAs. The UK and the USA (followed by Canada, China, the Netherlands, Italy and Germany) headed the absolute global productivity ranking in number of NMAs. The top 20 authors and institutions with the highest publication rates were identified. Overall, 43 clusters of authors (four major groups: one with 37 members, one with 12 members, one with 11 members and one with 10 members) and 21 clusters of institutions (two major groups: one with 62 members and one with 20 members) were identified. The most prolific authors were affiliated with academic institutions and private consulting firms. 181 consulting firms and pharmaceutical industries (14.39% of institutions) were involved in 199 NMAs (25.81% of total publications). Although there were increases in international and inter-institution collaborations, the research collaboration by authors, institutions and countries were still weak and most collaboration groups were small sizes. [Conclusion]: Scientific production on NMA is increasing worldwide with research leadership of Western countries (most notably, the UK, the USA and Canada). More authors, institutions and nations are becoming involved in research collaborations, but frequently with limited international collaborations.
Descriptionet al.
Publisher version (URL)https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163239
Identifiersdoi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163239
e-issn: 1932-6203
Appears in Collections:(INGENIO) Artículos
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
GRCsocinet.PDF2,66 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail
Show full item record
Review this work

Related articles:

WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.