Bibliometric analysis and network visualization mapping of global research in Q fever vaccine

Tauseef Ahmad; Haroon Haroon; Eric David Bicaldo Ornos; Husam Malibary; Akbar Hussain; Mukhtiar Baig; Eman Y. Santali; Jeehan H. Alestad; Muzaheed Muzaheed; Ali A. Rabaan; Harapan Harapan

doi:10.12688/f1000research.108909.1

Home Browse Bibliometric analysis and network visualization mapping of global...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Systematic Review

Bibliometric analysis and network visualization mapping of global research in Q fever vaccine

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

Tauseef Ahmad¹, Haroon Haroon², Eric David Bicaldo Ornos³, [...] Husam Malibary⁴, Akbar Hussain⁵, Mukhtiar Baig⁶, Eman Y. Santali⁷, Jeehan H. Alestad^8-10, Muzaheed Muzaheed¹¹, Ali A. Rabaan^12-14, Harapan Harapan ^15-17

Tauseef Ahmad¹, Haroon Haroon², [...] Eric David Bicaldo Ornos³, Husam Malibary⁴, Akbar Hussain⁵, Mukhtiar Baig⁶, Eman Y. Santali⁷, Jeehan H. Alestad^8-10, Muzaheed Muzaheed¹¹, Ali A. Rabaan^12-14, Harapan Harapan ^15-17

PUBLISHED 29 Mar 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210009, China
² College of Life Science, Northwest University, Xi'an, Xian, 710069, China
³ College of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila, Metro, Manila, 1000, Philippines
⁴ Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, 22252, Saudi Arabia
⁵ Department of Microbiology, School of Basic Health Sciences, Dalian Medical University, Lianing Province, 116041, China
⁶ Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, 25732, Saudi Arabia
⁷ Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, College of Pharmacy, Taif University, Taif, 26571, Saudi Arabia
⁸ Department of Immunology and Infectious Microbiology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G1 1XQ, UK
⁹ Department of Microbiology, Collage of Medicine, Collage of Medicine, Jabriya, 85000, Saudi Arabia
¹⁰ Kuwait Chair Madam in Antimicrobial Resistance Committee, Alternative Permanent Representative of Kuwait to the United Nation Agencies, Rome, Italy
¹¹ Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, 34221, Saudi Arabia
¹² Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory, Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare, Dhahran, 31311, Saudi Arabia
¹³ College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, 11533, Saudi Arabia
¹⁴ Department of Public Health and Nutrition, The University of Haripur, Haipur, 22610, Pakistan
¹⁵ Medical Research Unit, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia
¹⁶ Tropical Disease Centre, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia
¹⁷ Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia

Tauseef Ahmad
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Haroon Haroon
Roles: Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Eric David Bicaldo Ornos
Roles: Resources, Writing – Review & Editing

Husam Malibary
Roles: Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Akbar Hussain
Roles: Resources, Writing – Review & Editing

Mukhtiar Baig
Roles: Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Eman Y. Santali
Roles: Resources, Writing – Review & Editing

Jeehan H. Alestad
Roles: Resources, Writing – Review & Editing

Muzaheed Muzaheed
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Ali A. Rabaan
Roles: Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Harapan Harapan
Roles: Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway.

Abstract

Background: Query fever (Q fever), caused by Coxiella burnetii, is a highly infectious zoonotic infection to humans and livestock. Despite extensive efforts to develop effective vaccines against this disease, only one vaccine is licensed and available. The aim of this study was to investigate the global research trends, keystone bibliometric parameters, and network visualization mapping in Q fever vaccine from 1941 to 2021.
Methods: A retrospective bibliometric followed by a visualized study was conducted. The searches were conducted in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) Edition of Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). The following keywords were used: "Q fever" OR "Query fever" OR "Coxiella burnetii" OR "Coxiella-burnetii" OR "C. burnetii" (Topic) AND "Vaccin*" OR "Immuniz*" OR "Immunis*" (Topic) without any limitation. The data were plotted for co-authorship countries, co-occurrence keywords plus, and bibliographic coupling sources network visualization mapping. The VOSviewer version 1.6.17 was used for network visualization.
Results: The bibliographical search resulted in a total of 478 publications which were included in this study. The publications were mainly published in English (n=436), while the major document types were articles (n=391). The most productive year was 2014 (n=33), while the most cited year was 2020 (n=1026). The extensively studied research areas were immunology and veterinary science, and the most used keywords plus were Q-fever and Coxiella-burnetii. Kazar J (n=17) was the leading author, while the famous journal was Acta Virologica (n=23). The most active institution was the Slovak Academy of Sciences (n=32), and the leading country was the US (n=129).
Conclusion: A rapid increase has been observed in Q fever vaccine publications and citations in the past 20 years. This study might be of great interest to provide standard bibliographic information and keystones parameters in Q fever vaccine research.

Keywords

Q fever, Q fever vaccine, Bibliometric analysis, Web of Science, Visualization mapping

Corresponding authors: Tauseef Ahmad, Harapan Harapan

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This study was partly support by Taif University Research Supporting project number (TURSP-2020/330).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2022 Ahmad T et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Ahmad T, Haroon H, Ornos EDB et al. Bibliometric analysis and network visualization mapping of global research in Q fever vaccine [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 11:364 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.108909.1) First published: 29 Mar 2022, 11:364 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.108909.1) Latest published: 29 Mar 2022, 11:364 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.108909.1)

Introduction

Query fever (Q fever) is a highly infectious zoonotic infection to humans and livestock caused by the etiological agent Coxiella burnetii, an intracellular gram-negative bacterium widespread throughout the world.¹^,² Domestic ruminants are believed to be the primary source of Q fever in humans.³^,⁴ In humans, the infection is primarily transmitted via inhalation of aerosols from contaminated soil and animal excrement, most notably parturient fluids.⁴^–⁹ Consumption, particularly raw milk, is also likely a route of C. burnetii transmission. Although C. burnetii has been isolated from arthropods, primarily ticks, it is unlikely that arthropod-borne transmission of Q fever is significant in humans.⁵^,¹⁰ However, C. burnetii can infect other animal species, including pets and birds and cause human cases of Q fever.³^,⁶^,⁸^,¹¹ The majority of animal species infected with C. burnetii exhibit no symptoms.⁴^,⁶ However, in goats and sheep, Q fever's most common clinical manifestations are abortion and stillbirth. Q fever has been linked to sporadic abortion, infertility, and metritis in cattle.⁶^,¹² Abortion epidemics in livestock have been reported in endemic regions, resulting in severe economic consequences.¹^,¹³^,¹⁴ Abortion can result in the excretion of up to 1 billion C. burnetii per gram of placenta.¹⁵

In humans, the disease presents as an acute flu-like illness with a debilitating headache and cyclic fever as its hallmark symptoms.¹^,⁵ The typical signs and symptoms of symptomatic infection include headache, pyrexia, and respiratory tract infection, including atypical pneumonia; hepatitis is also a possibility.¹⁶ Chronic infection is well-known, most commonly manifesting as Q fever endocarditis.⁵^,¹⁶^–¹⁸ Correlations between C. burnetii infections and the onset of atherosclerosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, and other cerebrovascular events also have been suggested.¹^,⁵^,¹⁸^,¹⁹ Despite extensive efforts to develop an effective vaccine against human Q fever, only Q-Vax^® is commercially available, and its licensed use is limited to Australia.²⁰^–²² Thus, the current study was conducted to explore the global research outputs, research areas, and frontiers, and to establish the visualization mapping of research in the Q fever vaccine.

Methods

Study design and database searches

A bibliometric review followed by a visualized study was conducted (See underlying data).²³ The review is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines.²³ The Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) Edition of Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) was used to search for relevant publication on the Q fever vaccine as of October 16, 2021. The Web of Science (WoS) is the world's oldest database belonging to the commercial provider.²⁴^,²⁵ Currently, the WoS is hosted by Clarivate Analytics.²⁶ The WoSCC database is a selective citation index of scholarly and scientific publishing covering books, data compilations, proceedings, and journals.²⁵ The WoSCC is a commonly used database for bibliometric studies.²⁷^–³³ Previously published bibliometric studies conducted in medical and health sciences and other areas used SCI-E Edition of the WoSCC.³⁴^–³⁷ Therefore, in the current study, SCI-E Edition was utilized.

Searching keywords

The following keywords were used: “Q fever” OR “Query fever” OR “Coxiella burnetii” OR “Coxiella-burnetii” OR “C. burnetii” (Topic) AND “Vaccine*” OR “Immunize*” OR “Immunis*” (Topic). The searches were performed without any limitation in the topic field. The Topic field searches title, abstract, author keywords, and keywords plus.

Data extraction and analysis

We extracted many attributes such as author name, year of publication, journal, document type, institution, and country. The data were downloaded both in Comma-separated value and Tab delimited files. The collected information was entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, and the values were presented in frequencies and percentages.

Network visualization mapping

The data were exported in Tab delimited file into VOSviewer software version 1.17.1 for macOS for network visualization mapping. VOSviewer is a widely available tool for network visualization, overlay visualization, and density visualization mapping.³⁸ The retrieved data were plotted for co-authorship countries, co-occurrence keywords plus, and bibliographic coupling sources network visualization mapping. After plotting the data, clusters were formed, and each color designates a different cluster. The minimum cluster size for co-authorship countries was fixed at 10. The countries with zero total link strength (TLS) were excluded from the plotting. The thicker line between the countries represents the stronger collaboration, while the larger node or label represents the higher the weight vice versa.³⁹ The co-occurrence of a keyword plus was selected at 5. The keywords plus terms are generated from the titles of articles/documents cited by the author of the article being indexed. The articles/documents whose references are not linked to source items will not have keywords plus.⁴⁰ The data were further plotted for bibliographic coupling sources based on the cited references. The minimum number of items of a source was selected at 5. Alongside network visualization, the density visualization mapping was generated. In density visualization, same as network and overlay visualization, the items are represented by their label. In density visualization, each point has a color that represents the density of items at that point. In the neighborhood of a point in density visualization, the larger the number of items, and the weights of the neighboring items, the closer the color of the point is to yellow color.³⁹

Results

Characteristics of the studies

The initial search retrieved a total of 478 documents, and all the documents were included in the final bibliometric analysis and visualization mapping. The documents were published in nine languages: English (n=436), German (n=20), French (n=11), Czech (n=3), Dutch (n=3), Russian (n=2), Italian (n=1), Polish (n=1), and Slovak (n=1).

The included publications were cited 12,434 times (26.01 average citations per item) and 9,378 times without self-citations (19.62 average citations per item). The overall H-index value was 51 in the published documents. The most productive year of publications was 2014 (n=33, 884 citations), while the most cited year was 2020 (n=20, 1,026 citations), as shown in Figure 1. The documents published in 2021 (n=20) were cited 817 times.

Figure 1. The number of publications and citations of studies in Q fever vaccine between 1941 to 2021.

The majority of the documents were published as original/research articles (n=391), followed by review articles (n=51), and proceeding papers (n=24) (Figure 2A). The most studied research areas were immunology, veterinary sciences, and infectious diseases (Figure 2B). The most prolific author was Kazar J (n=17) (Figure 2C) and most of the article published in Acta Virologica (n=23) (Figure 2D).

Figure 2. Document types (A), top 10 most studied research areas (B), top 10 most prolific authors (C), and top 10 attractive journals (D) in Q fever vaccine research.

In total, 60 records did not contain institution names, while 34 records did not contain country names. The institution with the most publications (n=32) was the Slovak Academy of Sciences (Figure 3A). The top three leading countries in Q fever vaccine research were the USA (n=129), Australia (n=62), and the Netherlands (n=54), as shown in Figure 3B.

Figure 3. Top 10 active institutions (A) and top 10 leading countries in Q fever vaccine research (B).

Co-authorship countries network and density visualization

Of the total countries, 18 countries with TLS zero were excluded from the mapping. For the rest of the countries, the TLS ranged from 1 to 36. USA was the leading country with the highest TLS with other countries (n=36), followed by Netherlands (n=28), Switzerland (n=27), France (n=21), and England (n=21). A total of two clusters were formed; cluster 1 consists of 23 countries, while cluster 2 had 16 countries (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Co-authorship countries visualization mapping: (A) Network visualization and (B) Density visualization.

Co-occurrence keywords plus network and density visualization

Of the total keywords plus, only 105 met the criteria. At the same time, the cluster size was fixed at 10. A total of four clusters were formed; cluster 1 consists of 45 keywords plus, followed by cluster 2 (n=23), cluster 3 (n=20), and cluster 4 (n=17) (Figure 5). The widely used keywords plus based on occurrence and TLS was Q-fever (n=110, TLS=402), followed by Coxiella-burnetii (n=77, TLS=266), infection (n=67, TLS=338), vaccination (n=64, TLS=287), and an outbreak (n=57, TLS=275).

Figure 5. Co-occurrence keywords plus visualization mapping: (A) Network visualization and (B) Density visualization.

Bibliographic coupling sources network and density visualization

Of the total publication sources, only 23 met the criteria and were plotted. Two clusters were formed; cluster 1 consisted of 12 items, while cluster 2 had 11 items. Based on TLS value, Vaccine, Infection and Immunity, and PLOS One were the leading sources of publication (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Bibliographic coupling sources visualization mapping: (A) Network visualization and (B) Density visualization.

Discussion

This study has analyzed Q fever vaccine research trends and characteristics from 1941 to 2021. The key topics and research type in Q fever vaccine, main contributors and generators of knowledge in this field, and collaborations among researchers were presented. This study has shown an increase in publications and citations on Q fever vaccine research, especially for the last 20 years. This mirrors the trend of increasing vaccine-related publications throughout the years.⁴¹ However, publications on Q fever vaccinations are lagging other infectious diseases such as Ebola and HIV.⁴²^,⁴³ This might be due to the status of Q fever as a neglected and understudied disease.⁴⁴

The top research areas on Q fever vaccination include immunology, infectious disease, and microbiology. Furthermore, keyword analysis revealed that research areas include epidemiological surveys and pathophysiologic and genetic studies. This signifies the importance of fully understanding the disease entity to generate knowledge for vaccine production.²² Also included in the top research areas are veterinary sciences, public environmental, occupational health, and agriculture. This relates to the importance of Q fever not only for human health but also for the industry, particularly agriculture and animal husbandry.⁴⁵

The USA is the leading country in terms of the number of publications in Q fever vaccination. Furthermore, 8 out of the top 10 leading institutions in the field are from the USA. This is consistent with the high scientific productivity of the USA across different fields.⁴⁶ The USA is currently the country with the highest research expenditure and highest gross domestic product, which might explain its high productivity on research.⁴⁷^,⁴⁸ Moreover, we have shown that USA authors had the highest TLS with other countries, signifying its rich collaborations. Cooperation and collaboration have been shown to correlate well with increased research productivity.⁴⁹

Notably, some countries with a high disease burden, including Morocco, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria, are not the countries with the highest research production.⁴⁴ This indicates an imbalance can be seen between research production and the burden of disease. Therefore, there is a need to increase research activities among these countries to provide more evidence on Q fever.

Most of the top 10 journals in the Q fever vaccine field are international journals. Furthermore, 6 out of the top 10 journals have an impact factor greater than 3.0. Journal selection is influenced by different factors including journal ranking system, reliability of reviewing, university and national policies, usefulness of reviewers’ feedback, and research funding bodies.⁵⁰

Strengths and limitation

This is the first bibliometric study to summarize the global research output and trends in the Q fever vaccine indexed in WoSCC. The key bibliometric indices and visualization mapping were generated. This study used a single database WoSCC which may bias the results. Therefore, further studies are recommended to utilize multiple databases to evaluate the publication frequency and citation analysis.

Conclusion

This study used bibliometric analysis to provide an insight on the Q fever vaccine research, worldwide. In the past two decades, a rapid increase has been observed in Q fever vaccine publications and citations. USA was the leading country, and immunology was the most studied research in this field. The current study will provide standard bibliographic information and keystone parameters in Q fever vaccine research.

Data availability

Underlying data

Figshare: Bibliometric analysis and network visualization mapping of global research in Q fever vaccine.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.18316595.²³

This project contains the following underlying data:

Q-fever data.text: (Data of the publications downloaded from the Web of Science that were used in this bibliometric analysis study)

Reporting Guidelines

Figshare: PRISMA-Scoping review checklist for “Bibliometric analysis and network visualization mapping of global research in Q fever vaccine”

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.18316595.²³

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Southeast University, Nanjing, China, for providing free access to the WoSCC database. The authors would like to extend their sincere appreciation to Taif University Research Supporting project number (TURSP-2020/330).

References

1. Seshadri R, Paulsen IT, Eisen JA, et al.: Complete genome sequence of the Q-fever pathogen Coxiella burnetii. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2003; 100(9): 5455–5460. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Raoult D, Marrie T, Mege J: Natural history and pathophysiology of Q fever. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2005; 5(4): 219–226. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Woldehiwet Z: Q fever (coxiellosis): epidemiology and pathogenesis. Res. Vet. Sci. 2004; 77(2): 93–100. Publisher Full Text
4. Roest HI, Ruuls RC, Tilburg JJ, et al.: Molecular epidemiology of Coxiella burnetii from ruminants in Q fever outbreak, the Netherlands. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011; 17(4): 668–675. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Maurin M, Raoult D: Q fever. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1999; 12(4): 518–553. Publisher Full Text
6. Arricau-Bouvery N, Rodolakis A: Is Q fever an emerging or re-emerging zoonosis?. Vet. Res. 2005; 36(3): 327–349. Publisher Full Text
7. Schimmer B, Dijkstra F, Vellema P, et al.: Sustained intensive transmission of Q fever in the south of the Netherlands, 2009. Eurosurveillance. 2009; 14(19): 19210. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Angelakis E, Raoult D: Q fever. Vet. Microbiol. 2010; 140(3-4): 297–309. Publisher Full Text
9. Marrie TJ: Q fever. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 1990.
10. Mares-Guia MAMM, Rozental T, Guterres A, et al.: Molecular identification of the agent of Q fever–Coxiella burnetii–in domestic animals in State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop. 2014; 47: 231–234. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Babudieri B, Moscovici C: Experimental and natural infection of birds by Coxiella burneti. Nature. 1952; 169(4292): 195–196. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. Muskens J, Mars M, Franken P: Q fever: an overview. Tijdschr. Diergeneeskd. 2007; 132(23): 912–917. PubMed Abstract
13. Zeman DH, Kirkbride CA, Leslie-Steen P, et al.: Ovine abortion due to Coxiella burnetii infection. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 1989; 1(2): 178–180. Publisher Full Text
14. Sanford SE, Josephson G, MacDonald A: Coxiella burnetii (Q fever) abortion storms in goat herds after attendance at an annual fair. Can. Vet. J. 1994; 35(6): 376–378. PubMed Abstract
15. Bouvery NA, Souriau A, Lechopier P, et al.: Experimental Coxiella burnetii infection in pregnant goats: excretion routes. Vet. Res. 2003; 34(4): 423–433. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. Parker NR, Barralet JH, Bell AM: Q fever. Lancet. 2006; 367(9511): 679–688. Publisher Full Text
17. McCaughey C, Murray L, McKenna J, et al.: Coxiella burnetii (Q fever) seroprevalence in cattle. Epidemiol. Infect. 2010; 138(1): 21–27. Publisher Full Text
18. Wildman M, Smith E, Groves J, et al.: Chronic fatigue following infection by Coxiella burnetii (Q fever): ten-year follow-up of the 1989 UK outbreak cohort. QJM. 2002; 95(8): 527–538. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Lovey P-Y, Morabia A, Bleed D, et al.: Long term vascular complications of Coxiella burnetii infection in Switzerland: cohort study. BMJ. 1999; 319(7205): 284–286. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
20. Ackland JR, Worswick DA, Marmion BP: Vaccine prophylaxis of Q fever: A follow-up study of the efficacy of Q-Vax (CSL) 1985-1990. Med. J. Aust. 1994; 160(11): 704–708. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Sellens E, Bosward KL, Willis S, et al.: Frequency of adverse events following Q fever immunisation in young adults. Vaccines. 2018; 6(4): 83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Long CM: Q Fever Vaccine Development: Current Strategies and Future Considerations. Pathogens. 2021; 10(10): 1223. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Harapan H: Bibliometric analysis and network visualization mapping of global research in Q fever vaccine. figshare. Journal Contribution. 2022. Publisher Full Text
24. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, et al.: Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008; 22(2): 338–342. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Birkle C, Pendlebury DA, Schnell J, et al.: Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2020; 1(1): 363–376. Publisher Full Text
26. ClarivateAnalytics: Web of science core collection. Web of Science.2017. Reference Source
27. Ahmad T, Hua L, Khan M, et al.: Global Research Trends in Pediatric Trauma From 1968 to 2021: A Bibliometric Analysis. Front. Pediatr. 2021; 9: 1181. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
28. Ahmad T, Murad MA, Baig M, et al.: Research trends in COVID-19 vaccine: a bibliometric analysis. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2021; 17: 2367–2372. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Ahmad T, Murad MA, Nasir S, et al.: Trends in hepatitis A research indexed in the Web of Science: a bibliometric analysis over the period from 1985 to 2019. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 17: 3221–3229. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
30. Telles CR, Roy A, Ajmal MR, et al.: The impact of COVID-19 management policies tailored to airborne SARS-CoV-2 transmission: Policy analysis. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021; 7(4): e20699. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
31. Shah SM, Ahmad T, Chen S, et al.: A Bibliometric Analysis of the One Hundred Most Cited Studies in Psychosomatic Research. Psychother. Psychosom. 2021; 90: 425–430. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
32. Ahmad T, Dhama K, Tiwari R, et al.: Bibliometric analysis of the top 100 most cited studies in apolipoprotein E (ApoE) research. Narra J. 2021; 1(1). Publisher Full Text
33. Ahmad T, Haroon KM, Murad MA, et al.: Research trends in rabies vaccine in the last three decades: a bibliometric analysis of global perspective. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2021; 17: 3169–3177. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
34. Aleixandre-Tudó JL, Bolaños-Pizarro M, Aleixandre JL, et al.: Worldwide scientific research on nanotechnology: a bibliometric analysis of tendencies, funding, and challenges. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020; 68(34): 9158–9170. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
35. Mao X, Guo L, Fu P, et al.: The status and trends of coronavirus research: A global bibliometric and visualized analysis. Medicine. 2020; 99(22): e20137. Publisher Full Text
36. Chen P, Lin X, Chen B, et al.: The global state of research and trends in osteomyelitis from 2010 to 2019: a 10-year bibliometric analysis. Ann. Palliat. Med. 2021; 10: 3726–3738. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
37. García-Rio F, Alonso-Arroyo A, de Granda-Orive JI , et al.: Worldwide production on sleep apnea from 2009-2018. Analysis of the ability to secure funding and international collaboration networks. Respir. Med. 2021; 185: 106486. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
38. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L: Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2010; 84(2): 523–538. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
39. van Eck NJ , Waltman L: VOSviewer Manual.2021 [cited 2021 November 6]. Reference Source
40. Clarivate TM: KeyWords Plus generation, creation, and changes.2018 [cited 2021 November 6]. Reference Source
41. Fernandes S, Jit M, Bozzani F, et al.: A bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews on vaccines and immunisation. Vaccine. 2018; 36(17): 2254–2261. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
42. Akintunde TY, Musa TH, Musa HH, et al.: Mapping the global research output on Ebola vaccine from research indexed in web of science and scopus: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2021; 17: 4246–4258. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
43. Nye J, D'Souza MP, Hu D, et al.: Research productivity and collaboration of the NIH-funded HIV vaccine trials network: A bibliometric analysis. Heliyon. 2021; 7(1): e06005. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
44. Honarmand H: Q Fever: an old but still a poorly understood disease. Interdiscip. Perspect. Infect. Dis. 2012; 2012: 1–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
45. Mori M, Roest H-J: Farming, Q fever and public health: agricultural practices and beyond. Archives of Public Health. 2018; 76(1): 2–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
46. White K: Publications output: US trends and international comparisons. National Science Foundation; 2019.
47. Mariotto S, Mantovani A: Scientific productivity in neurology: impact of the socio-economic status. Neurol. Sci. 2021; 42(4): 1563–1566. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
48. USR: UNESCO science report: Towards 2030.2015. Reference Source
49. Abramo G, D’Angelo AC, Murgia G: The relationship among research productivity, research collaboration, and their determinants. J. Informet. 2017; 11(4): 1016–1030. Publisher Full Text
50. Rowley J, Sbaffi L, Sugden M, et al.: Factors influencing researchers’ journal selection decisions. J. Inf. Sci. 2020: 016555152095859. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 29 Mar 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210009, China
² College of Life Science, Northwest University, Xi'an, Xian, 710069, China
³ College of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila, Metro, Manila, 1000, Philippines
⁴ Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, 22252, Saudi Arabia
⁵ Department of Microbiology, School of Basic Health Sciences, Dalian Medical University, Lianing Province, 116041, China
⁶ Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, 25732, Saudi Arabia
⁷ Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, College of Pharmacy, Taif University, Taif, 26571, Saudi Arabia
⁸ Department of Immunology and Infectious Microbiology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G1 1XQ, UK
⁹ Department of Microbiology, Collage of Medicine, Collage of Medicine, Jabriya, 85000, Saudi Arabia
¹⁰ Kuwait Chair Madam in Antimicrobial Resistance Committee, Alternative Permanent Representative of Kuwait to the United Nation Agencies, Rome, Italy
¹¹ Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, 34221, Saudi Arabia
¹² Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory, Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare, Dhahran, 31311, Saudi Arabia
¹³ College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, 11533, Saudi Arabia
¹⁴ Department of Public Health and Nutrition, The University of Haripur, Haipur, 22610, Pakistan
¹⁵ Medical Research Unit, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia
¹⁶ Tropical Disease Centre, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia
¹⁷ Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, 23111, Indonesia

Tauseef Ahmad
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Haroon Haroon
Roles: Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Eric David Bicaldo Ornos
Roles: Resources, Writing – Review & Editing

Husam Malibary
Roles: Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Akbar Hussain
Roles: Resources, Writing – Review & Editing

Mukhtiar Baig
Roles: Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Eman Y. Santali
Roles: Resources, Writing – Review & Editing

Jeehan H. Alestad
Roles: Resources, Writing – Review & Editing

Muzaheed Muzaheed
Roles: Funding Acquisition, Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Ali A. Rabaan
Roles: Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Harapan Harapan
Roles: Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This study was partly support by Taif University Research Supporting project number (TURSP-2020/330).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 29 Mar 2022, 11:364

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.108909.1

Copyright

© 2022 Ahmad T et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Ahmad T, Haroon H, Ornos EDB et al. Bibliometric analysis and network visualization mapping of global research in Q fever vaccine [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 11:364 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.108909.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 29 Mar 2022

Views

3

Reviewer Report 05 Nov 2024

Festus Mulakoli, The Aga Khan University School of nursing and Midwifery, Nairobi, Kenya

Ann Kimani, ANS Programmes, The Aga Khan University - Kenya (Ringgold ID: 58585), Nairobi, Nairobi County, Kenya

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.120352.r336171

Summary of the article
This bibliometric analysis of the Q fever vaccine offers valuable insights into the trends and patterns in vaccine-related publications. By systematically examining the publication data, this analysis sheds light on the evolving research landscape surrounding ... Continue reading

Summary of the article
This bibliometric analysis of the Q fever vaccine offers valuable insights into the trends and patterns in vaccine-related publications. By systematically examining the publication data, this analysis sheds light on the evolving research landscape surrounding Q fever vaccines, including the frequency of publications over time, key contributors in the field, and emerging areas of focus.
Additionally, this analysis serves as a vital resource for government agencies, researchers, and other stakeholders, enabling them to closely monitor these trends. These data can inform decision-making processes related to public health policies, funding allocations, and vaccination strategies on a global scale. By understanding the trajectory of research on Q fever vaccines, stakeholders can address public health needs and respond to emerging challenges in infectious disease prevention.
Comments to authors
Abstract

Include a summary of visualization and recommendations

Background

The authors must provide a comprehensive overview of the global burden of Q fever, specifically focusing on its prevalence across different regions.
This analysis should also delve into the various determinants of the disease, including environmental, socioeconomic, and biological factors that influence its spread and impact in diverse populations.
By highlighting these elements, we will enhance our understanding of the significance of Q fever on a global scale and identify potential areas for intervention and further research.

Method section

Why review publications since 1941?

Results section
Several improvements are recommended to enhance the clarity and understanding of figures 1-6, I recommend making several improvements.

First, it is beneficial to distinctly separate the concepts of network and density in Figures 4, 5, and 6. This separation helps viewers differentiate between the two elements being presented more easily.
Additionally, incorporating a variety of colors into graphics can significantly improve visual distinction and comprehension.
Finally, increasing the resolution of the images ensures that all details are sharp and clear, facilitating a better interpretation of the data.

Discussion section

The discussion section should be thorough and well-rounded, incorporating citations from a variety of relevant studies to provide context and support for the findings. It is essential to critically assess the existing literature and identify gaps, inconsistencies, and areas of agreement, thereby situating the current research within this broader framework.
In addition, the authors should articulate how their findings contribute to a larger body of knowledge, emphasizing their significance and potential implications for future research and practice.
By doing so, the authors not only reinforce the relevance of their work but also invite further dialogue and investigation within the academic community.

Conclusion section
To enhance the clarity of the conclusion,

I suggest that the authors emphasize the key findings derived from this study and highlight their implications for the effective management of Q fever.
Additionally, we should see how these findings can inform better preventive strategies and health policies aimed at reducing the incidence of Q fever in the affected populations.
By clearly articulating these points, this study provides valuable insights that contribute to ongoing efforts in managing this disease.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Partly
If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Infectious diseases

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

13

Reviewer Report 26 Apr 2022

Carrie Mae Long, Laboratory of Bacteriology, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Hamilton, MT, USA

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.120352.r129250

The submitted systematic review manuscript aims to investigate historic and modern Q fever vaccine-related publications. The authors conducted analysis of general research trends, global distribution, and other features related to these publications. The authors concluded that there has been a ... Continue reading

The submitted systematic review manuscript aims to investigate historic and modern Q fever vaccine-related publications. The authors conducted analysis of general research trends, global distribution, and other features related to these publications. The authors concluded that there has been a notable increase in Q fever vaccine-related publications in the past twenty years and that the presented study may provide utility as a bibliographic resource for researchers. The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic. The submitted work was easy to read and the data was presented in a concise matter. While the concept of the review is with merit, I have several concerns regarding the data inclusion criteria and the main figures.

Major comments:

The study design and database search were well-described and are suitable for replication. I have several concerns regarding the inclusion criterion for "Q fever vaccine research":

The authors refer to the research of interest as "Q fever vaccine research" yet the criterion for this moniker does not appear to be well-defined. Given the wide breadth of studies that would be identified by the described search keywords, were publications identified based on type of manuscript (e.g. review, primary study) and level of relevance to C. burnetii/ Q fever vaccine research (e.g. ancillary association or study primary focus). I feel that these criteria need to be formally defined for the resultant data to be useful.
Similarly, it might be prudent to refer to the manuscripts in question as "Q fever vaccine-related publications".
Historically, C. burnetii has been referred to by a number of names, including Rickettsia burnetii, Rickettsia burneti, and Coxiella burneti. I am concerned that works published prior to formal naming of the bacteria and disease may be excluded on the current basis of the search.
Figure 5B appears to be identical to Figure 4B.
I was unable to access the Q-fever data.text file. Access to this file is very important given that one of the main conclusions addresses the utility of this data.

Minor Comments:

The figure legends are very terse and could potentially be improved with the addition of relevant information. For example, in Figure 3 it is unclear how authorship and study country are defined (e.g. first author, last author, any author affiliation?). This could be outlined in the figure legend for clarity.
The authors state that "6 out of the top 10 journals have an impact factor greater than 3.0". How was impact factor determined? Some journals have chosen to refrain from self-reporting. ¹ So I assume that impact factor was determined based on a third party source?
I suggest replacing words such as "attractive" and "famous" in reference to journals with less subjective alternatives.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Partly

References

1. Casadevall A, Bertuzzi S, Buchmeier M, Davis R, et al.: ASM Journals Eliminate Impact Factor Information from Journal Websites. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2016; 60 (9): 5109-5110 Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Coxiella burnetii, Q fever, vaccinology, immunology, bacterial pathogenesis, bacteriology, host-pathogen modeling

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 29 Mar 2022

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 1 29 Mar 22	read	read

Carrie Mae Long, National Institutes of Health, Hamilton, USA
Festus Mulakoli, The Aga Khan University School of nursing and Midwifery, Nairobi, Kenya

Ann Kimani, The Aga Khan University - Kenya (Ringgold ID: 58585), Nairobi, Kenya

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

3 Views

05 Nov 2024 | for Version 1

Festus Mulakoli, The Aga Khan University School of nursing and Midwifery, Nairobi, Kenya

Ann Kimani, ANS Programmes, The Aga Khan University - Kenya (Ringgold ID: 58585), Nairobi, Nairobi County, Kenya

3 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

Summary of the article
This bibliometric analysis of the Q fever vaccine offers valuable insights into the trends and patterns in vaccine-related publications. By systematically examining the publication data, this analysis sheds light on the evolving research landscape surrounding Q fever vaccines, including the frequency of publications over time, key contributors in the field, and emerging areas of focus.
Additionally, this analysis serves as a vital resource for government agencies, researchers, and other stakeholders, enabling them to closely monitor these trends. These data can inform decision-making processes related to public health policies, funding allocations, and vaccination strategies on a global scale. By understanding the trajectory of research on Q fever vaccines, stakeholders can address public health needs and respond to emerging challenges in infectious disease prevention.
Comments to authors
Abstract

Include a summary of visualization and recommendations

Background

The authors must provide a comprehensive overview of the global burden of Q fever, specifically focusing on its prevalence across different regions.
This analysis should also delve into the various determinants of the disease, including environmental, socioeconomic, and biological factors that influence its spread and impact in diverse populations.
By highlighting these elements, we will enhance our understanding of the significance of Q fever on a global scale and identify potential areas for intervention and further research.

Method section

Why review publications since 1941?

Results section
Several improvements are recommended to enhance the clarity and understanding of figures 1-6, I recommend making several improvements.

First, it is beneficial to distinctly separate the concepts of network and density in Figures 4, 5, and 6. This separation helps viewers differentiate between the two elements being presented more easily.
Additionally, incorporating a variety of colors into graphics can significantly improve visual distinction and comprehension.
Finally, increasing the resolution of the images ensures that all details are sharp and clear, facilitating a better interpretation of the data.

Discussion section

The discussion section should be thorough and well-rounded, incorporating citations from a variety of relevant studies to provide context and support for the findings. It is essential to critically assess the existing literature and identify gaps, inconsistencies, and areas of agreement, thereby situating the current research within this broader framework.
In addition, the authors should articulate how their findings contribute to a larger body of knowledge, emphasizing their significance and potential implications for future research and practice.
By doing so, the authors not only reinforce the relevance of their work but also invite further dialogue and investigation within the academic community.

Conclusion section
To enhance the clarity of the conclusion,

I suggest that the authors emphasize the key findings derived from this study and highlight their implications for the effective management of Q fever.
Additionally, we should see how these findings can inform better preventive strategies and health policies aimed at reducing the incidence of Q fever in the affected populations.
By clearly articulating these points, this study provides valuable insights that contribute to ongoing efforts in managing this disease.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Partly
If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Infectious diseases

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

13 Views

26 Apr 2022 | for Version 1

Carrie Mae Long, Laboratory of Bacteriology, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Hamilton, MT, USA

13 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

The submitted systematic review manuscript aims to investigate historic and modern Q fever vaccine-related publications. The authors conducted analysis of general research trends, global distribution, and other features related to these publications. The authors concluded that there has been a notable increase in Q fever vaccine-related publications in the past twenty years and that the presented study may provide utility as a bibliographic resource for researchers. The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic. The submitted work was easy to read and the data was presented in a concise matter. While the concept of the review is with merit, I have several concerns regarding the data inclusion criteria and the main figures.

Major comments:

The study design and database search were well-described and are suitable for replication. I have several concerns regarding the inclusion criterion for "Q fever vaccine research":

The authors refer to the research of interest as "Q fever vaccine research" yet the criterion for this moniker does not appear to be well-defined. Given the wide breadth of studies that would be identified by the described search keywords, were publications identified based on type of manuscript (e.g. review, primary study) and level of relevance to C. burnetii/ Q fever vaccine research (e.g. ancillary association or study primary focus). I feel that these criteria need to be formally defined for the resultant data to be useful.
Similarly, it might be prudent to refer to the manuscripts in question as "Q fever vaccine-related publications".
Historically, C. burnetii has been referred to by a number of names, including Rickettsia burnetii, Rickettsia burneti, and Coxiella burneti. I am concerned that works published prior to formal naming of the bacteria and disease may be excluded on the current basis of the search.
Figure 5B appears to be identical to Figure 4B.
I was unable to access the Q-fever data.text file. Access to this file is very important given that one of the main conclusions addresses the utility of this data.

Minor Comments:

The figure legends are very terse and could potentially be improved with the addition of relevant information. For example, in Figure 3 it is unclear how authorship and study country are defined (e.g. first author, last author, any author affiliation?). This could be outlined in the figure legend for clarity.
The authors state that "6 out of the top 10 journals have an impact factor greater than 3.0". How was impact factor determined? Some journals have chosen to refrain from self-reporting. ¹ So I assume that impact factor was determined based on a third party source?
I suggest replacing words such as "attractive" and "famous" in reference to journals with less subjective alternatives.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Partly

References

1. Casadevall A, Bertuzzi S, Buchmeier M, Davis R, et al.: ASM Journals Eliminate Impact Factor Information from Journal Websites. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2016; 60 (9): 5109-5110 Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Coxiella burnetii, Q fever, vaccinology, immunology, bacterial pathogenesis, bacteriology, host-pathogen modeling

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Seshadri R, Paulsen IT, Eisen JA, et al.: Complete genome sequence of the Q-fever pathogen Coxiella burnetii. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2003; 100(9): 5455–5460. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Raoult D, Marrie T, Mege J: Natural history and pathophysiology of Q fever. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2005; 5(4): 219–226. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Woldehiwet Z: Q fever (coxiellosis): epidemiology and pathogenesis. Res. Vet. Sci. 2004; 77(2): 93–100. Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Roest HI, Ruuls RC, Tilburg JJ, et al.: Molecular epidemiology of Coxiella burnetii from ruminants in Q fever outbreak, the Netherlands. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011; 17(4): 668–675. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Maurin M, Raoult D: Q fever. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1999; 12(4): 518–553. Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Arricau-Bouvery N, Rodolakis A: Is Q fever an emerging or re-emerging zoonosis?. Vet. Res. 2005; 36(3): 327–349. Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Schimmer B, Dijkstra F, Vellema P, et al.: Sustained intensive transmission of Q fever in the south of the Netherlands, 2009. Eurosurveillance. 2009; 14(19): 19210. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Angelakis E, Raoult D: Q fever. Vet. Microbiol. 2010; 140(3-4): 297–309. Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Marrie TJ: Q fever. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 1990.

[10] 10. Mares-Guia MAMM, Rozental T, Guterres A, et al.: Molecular identification of the agent of Q fever–Coxiella burnetii–in domestic animals in State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop. 2014; 47: 231–234. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Babudieri B, Moscovici C: Experimental and natural infection of birds by Coxiella burneti. Nature. 1952; 169(4292): 195–196. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Muskens J, Mars M, Franken P: Q fever: an overview. Tijdschr. Diergeneeskd. 2007; 132(23): 912–917. PubMed Abstract

[13] 13. Zeman DH, Kirkbride CA, Leslie-Steen P, et al.: Ovine abortion due to Coxiella burnetii infection. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 1989; 1(2): 178–180. Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Sanford SE, Josephson G, MacDonald A: Coxiella burnetii (Q fever) abortion storms in goat herds after attendance at an annual fair. Can. Vet. J. 1994; 35(6): 376–378. PubMed Abstract

[15] 15. Bouvery NA, Souriau A, Lechopier P, et al.: Experimental Coxiella burnetii infection in pregnant goats: excretion routes. Vet. Res. 2003; 34(4): 423–433. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Parker NR, Barralet JH, Bell AM: Q fever. Lancet. 2006; 367(9511): 679–688. Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. McCaughey C, Murray L, McKenna J, et al.: Coxiella burnetii (Q fever) seroprevalence in cattle. Epidemiol. Infect. 2010; 138(1): 21–27. Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Wildman M, Smith E, Groves J, et al.: Chronic fatigue following infection by Coxiella burnetii (Q fever): ten-year follow-up of the 1989 UK outbreak cohort. QJM. 2002; 95(8): 527–538. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Lovey P-Y, Morabia A, Bleed D, et al.: Long term vascular complications of Coxiella burnetii infection in Switzerland: cohort study. BMJ. 1999; 319(7205): 284–286. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[20] 20. Ackland JR, Worswick DA, Marmion BP: Vaccine prophylaxis of Q fever: A follow-up study of the efficacy of Q-Vax (CSL) 1985-1990. Med. J. Aust. 1994; 160(11): 704–708. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Sellens E, Bosward KL, Willis S, et al.: Frequency of adverse events following Q fever immunisation in young adults. Vaccines. 2018; 6(4): 83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Long CM: Q Fever Vaccine Development: Current Strategies and Future Considerations. Pathogens. 2021; 10(10): 1223. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Harapan H: Bibliometric analysis and network visualization mapping of global research in Q fever vaccine. figshare. Journal Contribution. 2022. Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, et al.: Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008; 22(2): 338–342. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Birkle C, Pendlebury DA, Schnell J, et al.: Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2020; 1(1): 363–376. Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. ClarivateAnalytics: Web of science core collection. Web of Science.2017. Reference Source

[27] 27. Ahmad T, Hua L, Khan M, et al.: Global Research Trends in Pediatric Trauma From 1968 to 2021: A Bibliometric Analysis. Front. Pediatr. 2021; 9: 1181. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Ahmad T, Murad MA, Baig M, et al.: Research trends in COVID-19 vaccine: a bibliometric analysis. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2021; 17: 2367–2372. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Ahmad T, Murad MA, Nasir S, et al.: Trends in hepatitis A research indexed in the Web of Science: a bibliometric analysis over the period from 1985 to 2019. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 17: 3221–3229. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Telles CR, Roy A, Ajmal MR, et al.: The impact of COVID-19 management policies tailored to airborne SARS-CoV-2 transmission: Policy analysis. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021; 7(4): e20699. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Shah SM, Ahmad T, Chen S, et al.: A Bibliometric Analysis of the One Hundred Most Cited Studies in Psychosomatic Research. Psychother. Psychosom. 2021; 90: 425–430. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Ahmad T, Dhama K, Tiwari R, et al.: Bibliometric analysis of the top 100 most cited studies in apolipoprotein E (ApoE) research. Narra J. 2021; 1(1). Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Ahmad T, Haroon KM, Murad MA, et al.: Research trends in rabies vaccine in the last three decades: a bibliometric analysis of global perspective. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2021; 17: 3169–3177. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Aleixandre-Tudó JL, Bolaños-Pizarro M, Aleixandre JL, et al.: Worldwide scientific research on nanotechnology: a bibliometric analysis of tendencies, funding, and challenges. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020; 68(34): 9158–9170. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Mao X, Guo L, Fu P, et al.: The status and trends of coronavirus research: A global bibliometric and visualized analysis. Medicine. 2020; 99(22): e20137. Publisher Full Text

[36] 36. Chen P, Lin X, Chen B, et al.: The global state of research and trends in osteomyelitis from 2010 to 2019: a 10-year bibliometric analysis. Ann. Palliat. Med. 2021; 10: 3726–3738. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. García-Rio F, Alonso-Arroyo A, de Granda-Orive JI , et al.: Worldwide production on sleep apnea from 2009-2018. Analysis of the ability to secure funding and international collaboration networks. Respir. Med. 2021; 185: 106486. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[38] 38. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L: Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2010; 84(2): 523–538. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[39] 39. van Eck NJ , Waltman L: VOSviewer Manual.2021 [cited 2021 November 6]. Reference Source

[40] 40. Clarivate TM: KeyWords Plus generation, creation, and changes.2018 [cited 2021 November 6]. Reference Source

[41] 41. Fernandes S, Jit M, Bozzani F, et al.: A bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews on vaccines and immunisation. Vaccine. 2018; 36(17): 2254–2261. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[42] 42. Akintunde TY, Musa TH, Musa HH, et al.: Mapping the global research output on Ebola vaccine from research indexed in web of science and scopus: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2021; 17: 4246–4258. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[43] 43. Nye J, D'Souza MP, Hu D, et al.: Research productivity and collaboration of the NIH-funded HIV vaccine trials network: A bibliometric analysis. Heliyon. 2021; 7(1): e06005. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[44] 44. Honarmand H: Q Fever: an old but still a poorly understood disease. Interdiscip. Perspect. Infect. Dis. 2012; 2012: 1–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[45] 45. Mori M, Roest H-J: Farming, Q fever and public health: agricultural practices and beyond. Archives of Public Health. 2018; 76(1): 2–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[46] 46. White K: Publications output: US trends and international comparisons. National Science Foundation; 2019.

[47] 47. Mariotto S, Mantovani A: Scientific productivity in neurology: impact of the socio-economic status. Neurol. Sci. 2021; 42(4): 1563–1566. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[48] 48. USR: UNESCO science report: Towards 2030.2015. Reference Source

[49] 49. Abramo G, D’Angelo AC, Murgia G: The relationship among research productivity, research collaboration, and their determinants. J. Informet. 2017; 11(4): 1016–1030. Publisher Full Text

[50] 50. Rowley J, Sbaffi L, Sugden M, et al.: Factors influencing researchers’ journal selection decisions. J. Inf. Sci. 2020: 016555152095859. Publisher Full Text

Bibliometric analysis and network visualization mapping of global research in Q fever vaccine

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Study design and database searches

Searching keywords

Data extraction and analysis

Network visualization mapping

Results

Characteristics of the studies

Figure 1. The number of publications and citations of studies in Q fever vaccine between 1941 to 2021.

Figure 2. Document types (A), top 10 most studied research areas (B), top 10 most prolific authors (C), and top 10 attractive journals (D) in Q fever vaccine research.

Figure 3. Top 10 active institutions (A) and top 10 leading countries in Q fever vaccine research (B).

Co-authorship countries network and density visualization

Figure 4. Co-authorship countries visualization mapping: (A) Network visualization and (B) Density visualization.

Co-occurrence keywords plus network and density visualization

Figure 5. Co-occurrence keywords plus visualization mapping: (A) Network visualization and (B) Density visualization.

Bibliographic coupling sources network and density visualization

Figure 6. Bibliographic coupling sources visualization mapping: (A) Network visualization and (B) Density visualization.

Discussion

Strengths and limitation

Conclusion

Data availability

Underlying data

Reporting Guidelines

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated