Analysis of research status of pneumoconiosis severity assessment indicators based on literature bibliometric
10.20001/j.issn.2095-2619.20240413
- VernacularTitle:尘肺病病情评估指标研究现状的文献计量学分析
- Author:
Luhan GUO
1
;
Zhenzhen FENG
;
Xuege SUN
;
Jiaheng YAO
;
Hulei ZHAO
Author Information
1. Department of Respiratory Diseases, the First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Zhengzhou, Henan 450009, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Pneumoconiosis;
Severity assessment;
Indicators;
Severity;
Research status;
Bibliometric
- From:
China Occupational Medicine
2024;51(2):193-198
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
ObjectiveTo conduct a bibliometric analysis on the research status of occupational pneumoconiosis (hereinafter referred to as "pneumoconiosis") severity assessment indicators. Methods The domestic and foreign articles on the research of pneumoconiosis severity assessment indicators were accessed from China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, VIP Database, China Biomedical Literature Service System, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The methodological quality evaluation and analysis of severity assessment indicators were performed with the relevant articles. Results A total of 88 relevant articles on pneumoconiosis severity assessment indicators were included. The overall evaluation of the literature with good-, moderate-, and poor-quality articles accounted for 18.18%, 69.32%, and 12.50%, respectively. The median sample size reported in each article was 86 cases. The articles reporting the stage of pneumoconiosis accounted for 81.82%, and 80.68% reported the types of pneumoconiosis which was mainly simple silicosis and coal worker's pneumoconiosis. Only 12 articles reported two or more types of pneumoconiosis. A total of 122 severity assessment indicators in four categories were reported in 88 articles, including 99 physiological and biochemical indicators, 10 imaging indicators, six symptoms and signs indicators, and seven other indicators. The articles used a single severity assessment indicator to assess the severity of pneumoconiosis accounted for 76.14%, while 23.86% of the articles used multiple severity assessment indicators, and only 5.68% of the articles selected specific severity assessment indicators for pneumoconiosis patients in different stages. Conclusion The quality of research on pneumoconiosis severity assessment is relatively low. The applicability of the combined use of severity assessment indicators is poor and confused.
