Vaccination for Human Papillomavirus: an historic and bibliometric study

References

• Chesson HW, Dunne EF, Hariri S, Markowitz LE. The estimated lifetime probability of acquiring human papillomavirus in the United States. Sex Transm Dis. 2014;41:660–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernard H-U, Burk RD, Chen Z, van Doorslaer K, Zur Hausen H, de Villiers E-M. Classification of papillomaviruses (PVs) based on 189 PV types and proposal of taxonomic amendments. Virology. 2010;401:70–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muñoz N, Bosch FX, de Sanjosé S, Herrero R, Castellsagué X, Shah KV, Snijders PJF, Meijer CJLM. Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:518–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. Human papillomavirus (HPV) [Internet]. WHO. [ cited 2020 Jul 10]; Available from: http://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/hpv/en/
   Google Scholar
• Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, Bosch FX, Kummer JA, Shah KV, Snijders PJ, Peto J, Meijer CJ, Muñoz N. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol. 1999;189:12–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55:74–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zur Hausen H. Papillomaviruses in the causation of human cancers — a brief historical account. Virology. 2009;384:260–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. Countries using hpv vaccine [Internet]. WHO. [cited 2020 Apr 10]; Available from: https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/hpv/decision_implementation/en/
   Google Scholar
• Cole FJ, Eales NB. The history of comparative anatomy: part 1 - A statistical analysis of the literature. Sci Prog. 1917;11:578–96.
   Google Scholar
• Wouters P. Eugene Garfield (1925–2017). Nature. 2017;543:492–492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science. 1972;178:471–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson HJ, de Figueiredo A, Xiahong Z, Schulz WS, Verger P, Johnston IG, Cook AR, Jones NS. The state of vaccine confidence 2016: global insights through a 67-country survey. EBioMedicine. 2016;12:295–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karafillakis E, Simas C, Jarrett C, Verger P, Peretti-Watel P, Dib F, De Angelis S, Takacs J, Ali KA, Pastore Celentano L, et al. HPV vaccination in a context of public mistrust and uncertainty: a systematic literature review of determinants of HPV vaccine hesitancy in Europe. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2019;15:1615–27.
   Google Scholar
• Price DJDS. Little science, big science. New-York: Columbia University Press; 1963.
   Google Scholar
• Druss BG, Marcus SC. Growth and decentralization of the medical literature: implications for evidence-based medicine. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93:499–501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaudelus J. Vaccination contre le papillomavirus : bilan et nouvelles extensions [Papillomavirus vaccination: assessment and new extensions]. Rev Prat. 2019;69:7–12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haut Conseil de la Santé Publique. Avis relatif à la place du vaccin GARDASIL 9® dans la stratégie actuelle de prévention des infections à papillomavirus humains du 10 février 2017 [Notice regarding the place of GARDASIL 9® vaccine in the current human papillomavirus infection prevention strategy of February 10, 2017] [Internet]. 2017. [cited 2020 Mar 26]. Available from: https://www.hcsp.fr/explore.cgi/avisrapportsdomaine?clefr=602
   Google Scholar
• ANSM. Vaccins anti-HPV et risque de maladies auto-immunes : étude pharmacoépidémiologique [HPV vaccines and risk of autoimmune diseases: pharmacoepidemiological study] [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2020 Mar 26]. Available from: https://ansm.sante.fr/var/ansm_site/storage/original/application/ea5e12b9c18ae41c2b8163ae5d7cb6f3.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2010; 1:42–58. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21808590/
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Epstein RJ. Six authors in search of a citation: villains or victims of the Vancouver convention? BMJ. 1993;306:765–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaffer E. Too many authors spoil the credit. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;28:605.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald RJ, Neff KL, Rethlefsen ML, Kallmes DF. Effects of author contribution disclosures and numeric limitations on authorship trends. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010;85:920–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levsky ME, Rosin A, Coon TP, Enslow WL, Miller MA. A descriptive analysis of authorship within medical journals, 1995–2005. South Med J. 2007;100:371–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong SJ, Yoon DY, Cho YK, Yoon SJ, Moon JY, Baek S, Lim KJ. Characteristics and quality of radiologic randomized controlled trials: a bibliometric analysis between 1995 and 2014. Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206:917–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baek S, Yoon DY, Cho YK, Yun EJ, Seo YL, Lim KJ, Choi CS. Trend toward an increase in authorship for leading radiology journals. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205:924–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chow DS, Ha R, Filippi CG. Increased rates of authorship in radiology publications: a bibliometric analysis of 142,576 articles published worldwide by radiologists between 1991 and 2012. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:W52–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fontelo P, Liu F. A review of recent publication trends from top publishing countries. Syst Rev. 2018;7:147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winnik S, Speer T, Raptis DA, Walker JH, Hasun M, Clavien P-A, Komajda M, Bax JJ, Tendera M, Fox K, et al. The wealth of nations and the dissemination of cardiovascular research. Int J Cardiol. 2013;169:190–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rostaing H La bibliométrie et ses techniques [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2019 Nov 28]; Available from: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01579948/document
   Google Scholar
• Shuaib W, Khan MS, Shahid H, Valdes EA, Alweis R. Bibliometric analysis of the top 100 cited cardiovascular articles. Am J Cardiol. 2015;115:972–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brinjikji W, Klunder A, Kallmes DF. The 100 most-cited articles in the imaging literature. Radiology. 2013;269:272–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang Y, Hu R, Zhu G. Top 100 cited articles on infection in orthopaedics: A bibliometric analysis. Medicine. 2019;98:e14067.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen X, Yang K, Xu Y, Li K. Top-100 highest-cited original articles in inflammatory bowel disease: A bibliometric analysis. Medicine. 2019;98:e15718.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinowatz F. The impact of the impact factor. Anat Histol Embryol. 2016;45:159–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawat S. How is impact factor impacting our research? Biomed J. 2014;37:415.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heneberg P. From excessive journal self-cites to citation stacking: analysis of journal self-citation kinetics in search for journals, which boost their scientometric indicators. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0153730.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thelwall M, Haustein S, Larivière V, Sugimoto CR. Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e64841.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2005;102:16569–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grzybowski A, Patryn R. Impact factor: universalism and reliability of assessment. Clin Dermatol. 2017;35:331–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed DA, Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Levine RB, Kern DE, Wright SM. Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA. 2007;298:1002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moses H, Matheson DHM, Cairns-Smith S, George BP, Palisch C, Dorsey ER. The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons. JAMA. 2015;313:174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Relman AS. Dealing with conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med. 1984;310:1182–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voineskos SH, Coroneos CJ, Ziolkowski NI, Kaur MN, Banfield L, Meade MO, Chung KC, Thoma A, Bhandari M. A systematic review of surgical randomized controlled trials: part 2. Funding source, conflict of interest, and sample size in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:453e–61e.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivanov A, Kaczkowska BA, Khan SA, Ho J, Tavakol M, Prasad A, Bhumireddy G, Beall AF, Klem I, Mehta P, et al. Review and analysis of publication trends over three decades in three high impact medicine journals. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0170056.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellegaard O, Wallin JA. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: how great is the impact? Scientometrics. 2015;105:1809–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramos JM, Gutiérrez F, Masía M, Martín-Hidalgo A. Publication of European Union research on infectious diseases (1991–2001): a bibliometric evaluation. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004;23:180–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duyx B, Swaen GMH, Urlings MJE, Bouter LM, Zeegers MP. The strong focus on positive results in abstracts may cause bias in systematic reviews: a case study on abstract reporting bias. Syst Rev. 2019;8:174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li G, Abbade LPF, Nwosu I, Jin Y, Leenus A, Maaz M, Wang M, Bhatt M, Zielinski L, Sanger N, et al. A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward LG, Kendrach MG, Price SO. Accuracy of abstracts for original research articles in pharmacy journals. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38:1173–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA. 1999;281:1110–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nascimento DP, Costa LOP, Gonzalez GZ, Maher CG, Moseley AM. Abstracts of low back pain trials are poorly reported, contain spin of information, and are inconsistent with the full text: an overview study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100:1976–1985.e18.
   Google Scholar
• Lehmen JA, Deering RM, Simpson AK, Carrier CS, Bono CM. Inconsistencies between abstracts and manuscripts in published studies about lumbar spine surgery. Spine. 2014;39:841–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jia P-L, Xu B, Cheng J-M, Huang X-H, Kwong JSW, Liu Y, Zhang C, Han Y, Xu C. Assessment of the abstract reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analysis: a literature survey. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19:148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I, Gøtzsche PC, Lasserson T, Tovey D, PRISMA for Abstracts Group. PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:e1–e34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gøtzsche PC. Believability of relative risks and odds ratios in abstracts: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2006;333:231–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar