Bibliometric trend analysis of non-conventional (alternative) therapies in veterinary research

Abstract

Background: There is an increased interest in Non-Conventional Therapies (NCTs), often referred to as complementary and alternative medicines, in veterinary clinical practice.Aim: To map the bibliometric outputs of NCTs in veterinary medicine, and identify which are most prevalent, and the extent to which their publishing has increased.Methods: Text mining algorithms were applied to detect 17 NCTs-related terms (acupuncture, ayurveda/ayurvedic, traditional Chinese medicine, traditional medicine, chiropractic, electroacupuncture, essential oil, plant extract, ethnopharmacology, herbal medicine, homeopathy, low-level laser therapy, medicinal plant, natural product, osteopathy, phytotherapy, and massage) in the title, abstract or keywords of all retrievable literature until 2020 under the PubMed MeSH term ‘veterinary’ (N = 377 556). Point prevalence, incidence by decade and cumulative incidence were calculated.Results: Bibliometric trend analysis revealed an overall increase in NCTs-related terms over the last 20 years, with a substantial growth of studies mentioning plant extracts, essential oils and medicinal plants. Traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine and natural product have also increased in the same period, although their numbers remain low. Conversely, reference to acupuncture has decreased in the last decade when compared with the previous decade, whereas references to homeopathy, electroacupuncture, osteopathy and chiropractic remained scarce, suggesting that their use in veterinary clinical practice may not be based on published evidence.Conclusion: Further reviews to explore this issue are warranted, differentiating secondary from primary literature, and assessing relevance and methodological quality of individual studies, following the principles of evidence-based veterinary medicine.

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 — 9 citations exist upstream.

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