Medical and Local Disease-Related Research on Nepal

Background and Aims: Highly cited papers (HCPs) can influence both research and clinical practice. They help to identify core literature and important advances in a field. This study aimed to assess the current status and prospects of South Asia COVID-19 research from the HCPs using bibliometric indicators. Methodology: COVID-19 literature from South Asia published between December 2019 and 29 November 2023 in the Scopus database was analysed. The top HCPs, having more than 200 citations, were evaluated. Information about citation counts, authors and organisations and their affiliations, year of publication, source journal, geographical origin, subject, article type, funding details, etc. were retrieved and analysed. Data and visualisation analysis was undertaken using Microsoft Excel and other bibliometric software. Results: The 298 South Asia HCPs were published from 2020 to 2023 and were cited 200–3,596 times, with a mean average of 413.9 citations per paper (CPP). Around 24.5% and 51.3% of HCPs received external funding support and were involved in international collaboration, respectively. The most productive organisations were the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, and the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, while the most impactful organisations were Bai Jerbai Wadia Hospital for Children, Mumbai, and Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital & Medical Research Institute, Mumbai. The most productive journals were Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews. Conclusions: This study has identified core and significant authors, organisations, journals, subject fields and significant keywords, collaborators and funding agencies involved in South Asia’s COVID-19 research.

Introduction/Objective. Essential Science Indicators (ESI) Highly Cited Papers (HCPs) refer to the most influential scientific articles and breakthrough research within a research field in the past decade. This study aimed to identify the characteristics of ESI HCPs in the subject category Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine, to recognize authors, institutions and countries of origin, and determine research trends that attracted the most scientific interest in dentistry. Methods. A descriptive analysis of bibliographic data, network extraction and visualization were completed. Furthermore, analyzed ESI HCPs were classified according to a field of interest, main research domain, type of study, and level of evidence. Results. The set of 185 dental HCPs was published in 42 journals from 2010 to 2020, with an average number of 211.7 citations per paper. Nearly half of HCPs were issued by the Journal of Dental Research, Dental Materials, and Journal of Clinical Periodontology. There were 765 authors affiliated with 351 institutions from 42 countries. The most productive institutions were the University of Hong Kong, the University of Michigan, and the University of Bern. The United States of America contributed with the highest number of publications, followed by China, and the United Kingdom. Dental materials, dental implantology, periodontology, and oral and maxillofacial surgery represented areas of significant interest within this subject category. The highest proportion of HCPs were narrative and systematic reviews, expert opinions, consensus reports, and in vitro ?r lab studies. Conclusion. Results obtained from this study can provide valuable information for researchers to better identify present and future hotspots in dental research.

<p style="text-align: justify;">In this paper, we have collected the data about the 507 high-cited (citations &ge; 25) papers on Covid 19 published by India using Scopus database. Within small span of time many papers have received considerable number of citations. Further we have analyzed in terms of types of papers, major funding agencies, major collaborating countries, prolific authors, productive organizations and cluster analysis of author supplied keywords. Most of the papers were research articles. Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India has funded considerable numbers of papers on Covid 19 and K. Dhama form Indian Veterinary Research Institute has contributed highest numbers papers and USA was major collaborating country and PGIMER-Chandigarh was most contributing organization. This study will be useful to the scientist/researchers to know the characteristics of high cited papers on Covid- 19 from India. <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Key words</strong>: India, Covid-19, High-cited papers, Bibliographic characterstics, Bibliometrics, Scientometrics.

Background: Food security and safety are becoming major concerns worldwide. Providing food security and safety in hospitals is particularly challenging since their populations are diverse in dietary and nutritional requirements and more vulnerable to foodborne illnesses. The aim of this research is to promote hospital sustainability by addressing food security and food safety. Method: This study uses a quantitative method with a bibliometric study approach. This research has 212 articles from the Scopus database. All the documents were collected simultaneously in August 2022. The selected article encompassed the years from 2017 to 2021, including document type, publication stage, source type, language, and subject area. The data was analyzed using VOSviewer and NVivo analytical tools. Results: The results of the studies on food security and safety increased from 2017-2022 with current trends in hospital sustainability, food waste, and waste management in food. Our study has identified four clusters: hospital food services, hospital sustainability, nutrition, and food safety. Food security is positively correlated with assessment, challenges, measurement, status, and sustainability (Pearson correlation score is 1). Disease control, proper waste management, and environmental health are all associated with food safety (Pearson correlation score ±0.79-0.64). Conclusion: Food safety and security are critical to achieve hospital sustainability, therefore awareness-raising efforts must continue. It is recommended that hospital stakeholders, food service providers; public and private sectors adopt policies and guidelines to disseminate information on food safety and security concerning hospital sustainability.

Background: Strengthening community-based healthcare is a valuable strategy to reduce health inequalities and improve the integration of migrants and refugees into local communities in the European Union. However, little is known about how to effectively develop and run community-based healthcare models for migrants and refugees. Aiming at identifying the most-promising best practices, we performed a scoping review of the international academic literature into effective community-based healthcare models and interventions for migrants and refugees as part of the Mig-HealthCare project. Methods: A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases was conducted in March 2018 following the PRISMA methodology. Data extraction from eligible publications included information on general study characteristics, a brief description of the intervention/model, and reported outcomes in terms of effectiveness and challenges. Subsequently, we critically assessed the available evidence per type of healthcare service according to specific criteria to establish a shortlist of the most promising best practices. Results: In total, 118 academic publications were critically reviewed and categorized in the thematic areas of mental health (n = 53), general health services (n = 36), noncommunicable diseases (n = 13), primary healthcare (n = 9), and women’s maternal and child health (n = 7). Conclusion: A set of 15 of the most-promising best practices and tools in community-based healthcare for migrants and refugees were identified that include several intervention approaches per thematic category. The elements of good communication, the linguistic barriers and the cultural differences, played crucial roles in the effective application of the interventions. The close collaboration of the various stakeholders, the local communities, the migrant/refugee communities, and the partnerships is a key element in the successful implementation of primary healthcare provision.

This paper aims to examine the publication metrics of literature related to the influential aspects of ESG (environmental, social, and governance), SRI (socially responsible investing), ethical, and impact investing on the portfolio and financial performance literature. It also seeks to identify major patterns and core themes in this topic and draw lessons from the past literature for future directions. Data from the SCOPUS database were used in this study. The ‘biblioshiny’ R package, also known as ‘bibliometrix 3.0’, was employed to conduct bibliometric analysis, utilising mapping and clustering techniques on 260 articles, in order to distil the comprehensive knowledge and identify emerging trends in ESG, SRI, ethical, and impact investing. The thematic map classified the ESG, SRI, ethical, impact investing and performance relationship themes into four categories of themes: niche themes (SRI, engagement and ESG), motor themes (corporate financial performance, corporate social performance, ESG, ESG factors, sustainability, performance, integrated reporting, gender diversity, and board size), emerging or declining themes (social responsibility, environmental performance, socially responsible investment, ethical investment, and SRI), and basic or transversal themes (financial performance, corporate social performance, ESG performance, environmental, social, and governance). Socially responsible investing, engagement, and ESG imply a position between niche themes and a highly developed topic/emerging or a decreasing theme, while the impact of COVID-19 on sustainability and financial performance implies a position between a highly developed topic/emerging or decreasing theme and a basic theme. The findings contribute to the enhanced understanding of ESG, SRI, ethical, impact investing and performance, which are crucial for an efficient capital market in promoting sustainability and sustainable development. The study offers vital practical implications and future research directions.

This study performed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis comparing Indian and international highly-cited papers (HCPs) in the Indian Journal of Orthopaedics (IJO). The study used a bibliometric design to analyze HCPs published in the IJO between 2007 and 2024, a period selected based on the journal's Scopus coverage. The Scopus database was used for its comprehensive coverage and robust citation analysis capabilities. All documents published in the IJO during this period were retrieved on June 20, 2025. The threshold for an HCP was set at 51 or more citations, as this indicates significant peer recognition and influence within the academic community. For each HCP, the following data was extracted: the title, publication year, and citation count; the country of origin (Indian or foreign); the study type (original article, review, conference paper, editorial, or letter); the subject focus (e.g., trauma, joint disorders, or infection); author and institutional affiliations; and collaboration patterns, defined as single-institution, national collaboration (two or more institutions within India), or international collaboration (institutions from different countries). The 54 HCPs accumulated 4697 citations, averaging 86.98 per paper. Indian HCPs, averaging 89.61 citations, predominantly comprised original articles and reviews focusing on trauma, joint disorders, and infection. Notably, 74% of Indian HCPs were single-institution studies, with limited international collaboration. In contrast, foreign HCPs, averaging 92.46 citations, exhibited a broader range of topics and more frequent national and international collaborations. Until 2011, Indian publications had a statistically significant lower mean difference in CPP (14.4 ± 2.0) compared to foreign publications (19.4 ± 3.9) with a p-value of 0.042; however, after 2011, this disparity vanished, with both Indian and foreign publications showing an 8.1 mean difference (± 4.2 and ± 4.4 respectively) and a p-value of 0.999. Indian HCPs focus on localized clinical priorities and have lower collaboration rates than their international counterparts. To enhance the global impact and citation potential of Indian orthopaedic research, expanding national and international collaborations and diversifying research topics is crucial. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-025-01555-7.

The research field of stem cell-based therapies in orthopaedics has witnessed significant growth in the recent past. We aimed to identify and analyze the bibliometric characteristics of the global highly cited papers (HCPs) in stem cell research in orthopaedics. This study relied on secondary data extracted from Scopus, Elsevier's abstract and citation database. An advanced search string was employed, for the period from 1995 to 2020. For each paper, the extracted information included the number of citations, title, authors (name, number, authorship position, and country), year of publication, title of the journals, study design, and thematic field. The VOSviewer (1.6.20) was used to uncover relationships between authors, institutions, keywords, and publications. There were a total of 1427 publications and out of these 186 papers had 100 or more citations (range 100-2644) and were considered as HCPs. The average citation per paper (CPP) was 265.8. Only 4% of the top HCPs contributed 20% of the total citations of all HCPs. All the HCPs were published from high-income countries, and the USA was the leading country in all aspects of publication on stem cell research. Méndez-Ferrer S registered the highest citation (n = 2644), Prockop DJ was the most prolific author (n = 8 papers), and Harvard Medical School, USA emerged as the most prolific organization with 12 HCPs. Global research in stem cell therapies for orthopaedic problems is making strides, and is an emerging field of research. Stem cell research offers the potential for improved treatment outcomes for various musculoskeletal conditions. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-024-01160-0.

The age at which children enter school represents a transitional period between early childhood and adolescence that involves increasing autonomy, interaction with peers, and exposure to environments outside the home. Although mortality is generally much lower in the 5 to 9 age group compared with infancy and early childhood, there are many preventable causes of mortality, morbidity, and disability that emerge in this age group, including injuries, noncommunicable diseases, and vaccine-preventable and highly treatable infections.1 Partly because of relatively low mortality rates and less frequent contacts with the health system, school-age children and younger adolescents ages 5 to 14 have been referred to as the “missing middle,” in that there is a dearth of robust data on key health indicators, morbidity burden, and cause-specific mortality in this group.2 Many health issues that have a high burden in early childhood can persist in older children, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), resource-constrained settings, and marginalized communities worldwide. Undernutrition and infections occurring in the context of poverty remain leading causes of morbidity and mortality in school-age children living in LMIC,3 whereas those children in higher-income settings are more likely to die due to injuries or noncommunicable disease (NCD). In addition, the prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents has increased steadily over the last few decades,4 though the rate of these increases varies widely among countries.5New risk factors relating to diet, lifestyle, mental health, injuries, and NCDs also become more prominent as children approach and enter adolescence, many of which can contribute to the development of chronic NCDs over the life course. Within this period, school-age children begin to establish healthy lifestyle habits (eg, diet, physical activity, avoidance of substance use), and are learning about sexual and reproductive health and rights, as well as the measures they can take to protect themselves and others. This represents a window of opportunity for educational interventions to support good health, optimal development, and well-being. A growing body of evidence suggests that school-based and digital platforms and delivery strategies are promising tools that aid in the delivery of health interventions to older children.The methodology and reviews described herein contributed to the portion of the upcoming 2022 Lancet Optimizing Child and Adolescent Health and Development Series6 related to school-age child and adolescent health interventions. This Lancet Series is the product of an ongoing academic collaboration involving global child health researchers worldwide, including many who are authors on articles within this supplement. The aim of the specific Lancet Series article citing this supplement is to provide a comprehensive overview of systematic reviews describing the most recent evidence for effective interventions to support maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health and development from preconception through to 20 years of age.Figure 1 provides an overview of the key child health domains, and a breakdown of the intervention review topics addressing key risk factors covered by the articles included in this journal supplement. On the basis of work done in previous comprehensive overviews of interventions for child and adolescent health (eg, Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition7; Lancet Adolescent Health Commission8), we identified a comprehensive set of key child health domains that represented priority areas for interventions to address modifiable risks for the major causes of child mortality and morbidity. The factors that informed which domains were covered in this supplement included: conditions with a high global burden of disease, conditions with disproportionate impacts on vulnerable and marginalized populations, potential to support improved human capital development across the life course, and pragmatic considerations including whether the topic had recently been covered elsewhere. In cases where the child health domain was deemed too broad in scope for a single review (eg, infectious diseases), the subtopics for individual reviews were also chosen on the basis of these factors. The age group of specific interest for these reviews was older school-age children (ages 5–9.9), though the period of early adolescence (ages 10–14.9) was also recognized as an important area of overlap and transition. The general outcomes of interest aligned with those chosen through consensus by the Lancet Series working group. These included, but were not limited to, mortality, severe morbidity, disability, growth and development, knowledge and behavior, and indicators of improved human capital development such as academic achievement.The methodological approaches taken, and child health domains covered in this supplement of reviews, was informed by a broad initial literature-scoping and evidence-mapping process to identify key health interventions and associated evidence for their effectiveness in the form of systematic reviews. This was done across all domains, from preconception and pregnancy to ages 0 to 20 to inform the 2022 Lancet Optimizing Child and Adolescent Health and Development Series.6 This involved leveraging existing large-scale intervention overviews (eg, Disease Control Priorities 3rd edition, Lancet Series) that had already highlighted existing effective interventions and the most recent systematic reviews detailing the evidence for their effectiveness. Additional targeted searches for newer interventions and systematic reviews in each domain were also conducted. Through this evidence-mapping process, we explored coverage and extent of LMIC-specific evidence across all child health domains to identify areas where school-age evidence was lacking and determined that there were significant gaps in existing evidence for intervention effectiveness in school-age children.We funneled the reviews identified during this initial scoping process that contained studies covering school-age children and adolescents into the individual reviews for each domain of child health covered in this supplement. We elected to conduct targeted overviews of systematic reviews if there was deemed to be a large body of existing evidence syntheses. In cases where there was a lack of evidence syntheses of intervention effectiveness for a given domain of school-age child health, conventional systematic reviews of primary literature (ie, experimental studies) were conducted. The general methodology for these 2 approaches are described below. See Table 1 and Fig 1 for a summary of the review methods used for each child health domain, and Fig 2 for a breakdown of the main methodology followed in each type of review.For those child health domains that encompassed a variety of intervention types addressing a wide range of risk factors and health conditions, and for which the initial scoping process identified a variety of existing systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness, an overview of systematic reviews was undertaken. This approach was taken to ensure comprehensiveness, reduce duplication of review efforts, and make the review process feasible.In addition to incorporating those relevant reviews previously identified in the initial literature-scoping and evidence-mapping exercise, tailored searches were executed in several databases (eg, Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Campbell Library) to identify literature published up until the end of 2020. Evidence derived from Cochrane reviews and other high-quality systematic reviews that synthesized evidence from randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies examining the effectiveness of interventions was prioritized for inclusion. A first pass of title and abstract screening for relevance was conducted, followed by a full text screening that was done by at least 2 reviewers against inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently filled a standardized data abstraction form to capture review characteristics, the characteristics of included studies and interventions (eg, age coverage, country representation, delivery platform), and pooled-effect estimates (eg, risk ratios, odds ratios, mean differences, 95% confidence intervals) derived from meta-analyses where they were reported. The main outcomes of interest across the reviews included measures of child morbidity, mortality, development, academic achievement, and mental and physical well-being. The extracted data were then matched among reviewers to check for errors and ensure consistency, and then consolidated into a single table for inclusion in the article. The AMSTAR 2 tool12 was used for review quality assessment, and was also conducted in duplicate, with any disagreements in ratings resolved by consensus or the involvement of a third reviewer.If for a given domain the initial evidence-mapping exercise revealed that the existing evidence-synthesis literature was lacking for the school-age group, we proceeded with a conventional systematic review of primary literature. All systematic reviews were reported in accordance with the reporting guidance provided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria.13Search strategies were developed using the population, intervention, control, and outcomes methodology, relevant medical subject headings terms, and keywords derived from the scoping search. The search terms were adapted for use in other bibliographic databases in combination with database-specific filters for controlled trials, where these were available. Searches for the individual, domain-specific reviews were conducted in a variety of databases, including but not limited to: PubMed, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, Ovid SP, The Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register, and the World Health Organization regional databases. Evidence derived from LMIC was prioritized for synthesis, though evidence from high-income countries (HIC) settings was leveraged to highlight whether effective interventions exist in cases where LMIC evidence was sparse. Gray literature searches and additional hand searching were conducted in Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles, book chapters, and reviews.After removal of duplicate studies, a multistage screening process was performed to select studies that met the eligibility criteria. Each title and abstract was assessed by at least 1 reviewer, who excluded those that were deemed irrelevant. At the full-text review stage, at least 2 reviewers assessed all full texts. Any disagreements in inclusion decisions were resolved by discussion and, where necessary, by consulting a third reviewer. At this stage, reasons for exclusion were documented. The methods section of each individual review in this supplement describes their selection and eligibility criteria, which differed depending on the child health domain being assessed. Data from included studies were independently extracted and coded by 2 review authors using standardized, previously piloted data extraction forms, which sought general study characteristics, details of the population, intervention, comparison groups, and quantitative outcome data. Data extraction forms were matched and checked, and if necessary, a third review author was consulted in the event of any disagreements to establish consensus.Assessment of risk of bias for included studies was conducted according to criteria and tools outlined in the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care guidelines14 for randomized trials, nonrandomized trials, controlled before–after, interrupted time series, and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.15 Assessments were conducted independently by 2 review authors; scores were compared, and a final risk of bias judgement was reported for the included studies of each systematic review. Randomized trials were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool15 across the following domains: randomization process, deviations from the intended interventions (blinding of personnel, participants, and outcome assessment), missing outcome data, outcome measurement, the selection of the reported result, disclosure of funding, and conflicts of interest. Studies were assigned an overall risk of bias judgement accordingly (low risk, high risk, or some concerns/medium risk). Quasi-experimental study designs were assessed using the Risk of Bias Tool for Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.15,16 Studies were assessed according to the following domains: bias because of confounding, bias in selection of study participants, bias in classification of interventions, bias because of deviations from intended interventions, bias because of missing data, bias in measurement of outcomes, and bias in selection of the reported result. Each study was assigned an overall risk of bias judgement (low, moderate, serious, and critical risk).Meta-analyses were conducted where possible using Review Manager 5.4 software.17 Randomized controlled trials and cluster-randomized controlled trials were analyzed separately from quasi-experimental study designs. To mitigate heterogeneity within included studies, a random-effects meta-analysis was used for pooled outcomes. For those situations where meta-analysis was not possible, data on the effect of interventions from individual studies was tabulated and reported, and a narrative synthesis was conducted for each key intervention domain.Where there were a sufficient quantity of comparable studies (in both interventions and outcome), a summary of the intervention effect and a measure of quality for key outcomes were produced using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.18 The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach considers 5 domains (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome. The evidence was downgraded from “high quality” by 1 level for serious (or by 2 levels for very serious) limitations, depending on assessments for risk of bias, indirectness of evidence, serious inconsistency, imprecision of effect estimates, or potential publication bias.The aim of the authors of this supplement of reviews is to comprehensively assess the available evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to improve health and well-being in school-age children and adolescents. The initial literature-scoping and evidence-mapping process, followed by the different review approaches taken, has helped to maximize the scope covered across this set of reviews, and has allowed us to provide the most comprehensive assessment of the state of the published literature covering interventions for school-age children and adolescents. The individual reviews in this supplement have also highlighted child health domain-specific gaps in the evidence for both primary literature in the school-age group, and gaps in existing evidence syntheses.It is important to note that, for the reviews within this supplement, the descriptions of intervention effects are meant to provide an overview of what is currently known in terms of evidence for effectiveness, and do not imply that other interventions were ineffective simply because there was an evidence gap. Given the limited space and large scope, it was only possible to provide the highlights of specific comparisons and outcomes in each of the results sections. Comprehensive tables of study characteristics, outcomes, and effect estimates are provided in both the main articles and appendices.Although we were specifically interested in focusing on LMIC research, this was only feasible for a few review topics (eg, sexual and reproductive health and rights, neglected tropical diseases) because of a dearth of literature. Instead of being used to attempt to generalize their effectiveness to LMIC settings, evidence from intervention effectiveness in HIC settings are included and described to establish that effective interventions do indeed exist and may differ in their impact between settings. This approach has previously been used in the context of adolescent health interventions.19 This evidence from HIC could act as a starting point for future research and implementation in various LMIC settings, with program components tailored to local contexts.In the case of those reviews taking the overview of systematic reviews approach, we were limited to including only those primary studies already included in systematic reviews and could not cover each subdomain in depth. Thus, we were unable to identify and include those primary studies that may not have been included in systematic reviews because of studies not being identified in review authors’ database searches, not meeting their inclusion criteria, or falling out of the time frame of the review. Furthermore, some systematic reviews of primary literature were unable to perform meta-analyses because of high heterogeneity or a lack of high-quality evidence from randomized trials, which makes synthesizing the existing evidence more difficult.

Where Should You Publish? Choosing a Journal for Your Manuscript.

Offline: The uses of discomfort

The Role of Healthy Lifestyle Promotion, Counseling, and Follow-up in Noncommunicable Diseases Prevention

Preventive Strategy Against Infectious Diarrhea—A Holistic Approach

The Scopus journal classification method, known as All Science Journal Classification (ASJC), follows a hierarchical organization of subject categories: minor, major, and supergroups. At the minor level, journals are assigned to one or more subject categories. We refer to this classification scheme as a multiple-category hierarchical scheme. The objective of this study is to investigate the dominant characteristics of subject categories within the Scopus database and quantify their dominance using various subject indices. To conduct the study, we formulated a set of subject category indices, including the Number of Journals (J), Total Instances of Subject Categories (SC), Number of Unique Subject Categories (USC), and Dominance Index (DOMI). The results showed that high DOMI values in subject categories indicate specialization and limited associations with other fields. There were minimal correlations between DOMI and other subject category indices like J, SC, and USC, demonstrating their uniqueness and independence. The study also revealed that subject categories within the Health Sciences exhibited higher DOMI values and greater specialization compared to those in the Physical Sciences, indicating a pronounced dominance in Health Sciences minor categories. Finally, minor subject categories exhibited more variation in subject category indices compared to their upper-level subject categories, highlighting the intricate variations within the hierarchical system of the Scopus classification. These findings have implications for researchers, emphasizing the need to consider a subject category’s dominance and associations when selecting journals for their research.

Top 100 highly cited papers from India on COVID-19 research: A bibliometric analysis of the core literature