How far has diabetes-related foot disease research progressed in Australia? A bibliometric review (1970-2023).

Abstract

Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) is a leading cause of the Australian and global disease burdens and requires proportionate volumes of research to address. Bibliometric analyses are rigorous methods for exploring total research publications in a field to help identify volume trends, gaps and emerging areas of need. This bibliometric review aimed to explore the volume, authors, institutions, journals, collaborating countries, research types and funding sources of Australian publications investigating DFD over 50years. A systematic search of the Scopus® database was conducted by two independent authors to identify all Australian DFD literature published between 1970 and 2023. Bibliometric meta-data were extracted from Scopus®, analyzed in Biblioshiny, an R Statistical Software interface, and publication volumes, authors, institutions, journals and collaborative countries were described. Publications were also categorised for research type and funding source. Overall, 332 eligible publications were included. Publication volume increased steadily over time, with largest volumes (78%) and a 7-fold increase over the last decade. Mean co-authors per publication was 5.6, mean journal impact factor was 2.9 and median citation was 9 (IQR2-24). Most frequent authors were Peter Lazzarini (14%), Vivienne Chuter (8%) and Jonathon Golledge (7%). Most frequent institutions affiliated were Queensland University Technology (33%), University Sydney (30%) and James Cook University (25%). Most frequent journals published in were Journal Foot and Ankle Research (17%), Diabetic Medicine (7%), Journal Diabetes and its Complications (4%) and International Wound Journal (4%). Most frequent collaborating countries were the United Kingdom (9%), the Netherlands (6%) and the United States (5%). Leading research types were etiology (38%), treatment evaluation (25%) and health services research (13%). Leading funding sources were no funding (60%), internal institution (16%) and industry/philanthropic/international (10%). Australian DFD research increased steadily until more dramatic increases were seen over the past decade. Most research received no funding and mainly investigated etiology, existing treatments or health services. Australian DFD researchers appear to be very productive, particularly in recent times, despite minimal funding indicating their resilience. However, if the field is to continue to rapidly grow and address the very large national DFD burden, much more research funding is needed in Australia, especially targeting prevention and clinical trials of new treatments in DFD.