Global research status of gastroenterology and hepatology: A bibliometrics study

BACKGROUND

There are no reports on global research status of gastroenterology and hepatology (GI). This study was conducted to reveal the current global research status and trends in GI.

METHODS

Articles published during 2009 to 2018 in international GI journals were retrieved from the PubMed database. The top 20 countries by output were determined. The gross domestic product (GDP) of each country was also retrieved to figure out the correlation between outputs in GI and economy. The 5 highest-ranking countries were compared in the number of total articles, articles per capita, articles published in top journals, the accumulated impact factor (IF), and average IF. Total articles and articles per capita of the 5 countries were conducted time-trend analysis. The frequently-used terms in titles and abstracts of articles published in 2009 and 2018 were retrieved to conduct co-occurrence analysis to figure out the change of research highlights in GI.

RESULTS

A total of 120,267 articles were included, of which 116,485 articles were from 20 highest-output countries. There was a positive correlation between output and GDP (r = 0.921, P < .001). The USA, Japan, China, Italy, and the UK were the 5 highest-ranking countries. The USA was the largest contributor with 26,215 articles, accounting for 17.4% of the total, but with no significant increasing trend (P = .122). Other 4 countries all showed increasing trends (all P < .001). For articles per capita, Italy ranked 1st among the 5 countries with 1591.0 articles per 10 million. The USA showed a decreasing trend (P = .026), other 4 countries all showed increasing trends (all P < .001). The UK had the highest average IF (6.685). For change of research highlights, it is more inclined to research of endoscopy, inflammatory bowel diseases, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

CONCLUSION

It is delightful that the global research output in GI field would be continuingly increased as the major highest-output countries showed increasing trends. However, the developing countries fell behind both in quantity and quality when compared with developed countries.

Autoantibody detection is not recommended for chronic pancreatitis: a cross-sectional Study of 557 patients

BACKGROUND

Autoimmune factor was regarded as one of the risk factors in the pathogenesis of chronic pancreatitis (CP), especially for autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP). However, whether autoimmune factor plays a role in non-AIP CP or not was unknown.

METHODS

Hospitalized patients with non-AIP CP from January 2010 to October 2016 were detected for 22 autoantibodies at the time of hospital admission. Autoantibodies with frequency > 0.5% were enrolled to calculate the frequency in historial healthy controls through literature search in PubMed. Differentially expressed autoantibodies were determined between patients and historial healthy controls, and related factors were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

In a total of 557 patients, 113 cases were detected with 19 kinds of positive autoantibodies, among them anti-β2-glycoprotein I (β2-GPI) antibody was most frequent (9.16%). Compared with historial healthy controls, the frequencies of serum β2-GPI and anti SS-B antibody in patients were significantly higher, while frequencies of anti-smooth muscle antibody and anticardiolipin antibody were significantly lower (all P < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis result showed that diabetes mellitus (OR = 2.515) and common bile duct stricture (OR = 2.844) were the risk factors of positive β2-GPI antibody in patients while diabetes mellitus in first-/second-/third-degree relatives (OR = 0.266) was the protective factor. There were no related factors for other three differentially expressed autoantibodies.

CONCLUSIONS

Four autoantibodies were expressed differentially between patients with non-AIP CP and historial healthy controls. Due to limited significance for diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis, autoantibodies detection is not recommended conventionally unless suspected of AIP.