Current status and trends in researches based on public intensive care databases: A scientometric investigation

Abstract

Objective: Public intensive care databases cover a wide range of data that are produced in intensive care units (ICUs). Public intensive care databases draw great attention from researchers since they were time-saving and money-saving in obtaining data. This study aimed to explore the current status and trends of publications based on public intensive care databases. Methods: Articles and reviews based on public intensive care databases, published from 2001 to 2021, were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) for investigation. Scientometric software (CiteSpace and VOSviewer) were used to generate network maps and reveal hot spots of studies based on public intensive care databases. Results: A total of 456 studies were collected. Zhang Zhongheng from Zhejiang University (China) and Leo Anthony Celi from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT, USA) occupied important positions in studies based on public intensive care databases. Closer cooperation was observed between institutions in the same country. Six Research Topics were concluded through keyword analysis. Result of citation burst indicated that this field was in the stage of rapid development, with more diseases and clinical problems being investigated. Machine learning is still the hot research method in this field. Conclusions: This is the first time that scientometrics has been used in the investigation of studies based on public intensive databases. Although more and more studies based on public intensive care databases were published, public intensive care databases may not be fully explored. Moreover, it could also help researchers directly perceive the current status and trends in this field. Public intensive care databases could be fully explored with more researchers' knowledge of this field.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.