Temporomandibular Joint Disorders, a Bibliometric Evidence-Based Approach to Analysis

Fig. 12.1

Search Strategy to access PubMed/MEDLINE database (from 1998 to 2008)
All the information retrieved from the search strategy was saved and imported into OmniViz™ for analysis. Thus, a new database with nine components (publication type, author, title, affiliation, reference, abstract, medical subject headings or MeSH terms, PubMed unique identifier or PMID, and publication date) was created. A visual representation of information, or Galaxy View, was generated using the default text analysis algorithms. To generate a more coherent view of the database, the cluster number was limited to 20 clusters, and both title and abstract words were selected to create the clusters.
The Galaxy View is a proximity map, such that closely related records and clusters are placed near each other, while thematically distinct clusters are located far apart. The record clustering is determined by the numeric vector calculated for each record, based on word occurrence, distribution, and associations located in a selected component (our analysis parameter was both title and abstract words).
In the Galaxy View, each dot represents a record and each record represents a publication retrieved from MEDLINE. Within a cluster, each record can be identified and selected to view, in the information panel, a detailed information about the cluster label and the record. The cluster label is comprised by top three discriminating major terms. Major terms are the words or phrases located in the selected component that are most relevant to discriminating one record from another and they are the principal parameters used in clustering the records. Nearby clusters often share major terms, indicating that they have some themes in common. Detailed view of the selected clusters or records (e.g., publication type, author, title, abstract) can also be seen.
In the next phase, the clusters were queried to identify the major term, and determine the identity and number of clinical trials and systematic reviews. The search strategies used to identify the clinical trials and systematic reviews were based on the work of Haynes RB et al. [17] and Montori VM et al. [23]. The number of identified records and clusters was determined and tabulated using Excel for windows (Microsoft, USA) spreadsheets. A final analysis was done in a descriptive fashion.

12.3 Results: TMJD Literature

Our search strategy identified 6,196 publications in MEDLINE on TMJD from 1998 to 2008. Of these 5,138 could be imported into OmniViz™. The number of publications that are imported into OmniViz™ is lower than the number retrieved in the MEDLINE search, because OmniViz™, by default, during data importation, is set to ignore records that have titles but no abstract. Thus, the OmniViz™ TMJD database eliminated 1,058 publications.
Distributions of the publications, clinical trials, and systematic reviews per year are shown in Table 12.1. From 1998 to 2008, the 5,138 publications were distributed as follows. There were: 460 clinical trials and 100 systematic reviews. On an average, by year, there were 467 ± 65 publications, 42 ± 9 clinical trials, and 9 ± 4 systematic reviews (mean ± SD). Clinical trials and systematic reviews represent, respectively, 9 and 2% of the TMJD literature. During the most recent 5 years, 50% of the publications and clinical trials, and 61% of the systematic reviews were published. These figures indicate an increasing interest in TMJD, and also emphasize the lack of high quality studies (systematic reviews and clinical trials) in the TMJD literature.

Table 12.1

TMJD publications, clinical trials, and systematic reviews from 1998 to 2008
Year
Publications (n > 5138)
Clinical trials (n > 460)
Proportion clinical trials/publications (%)
Systematic reviews (n > 100)
Proportion systematic reviews/publications (%)
1998
401 (7.8%)
31 (6.7%)
7.7
4 (4.0%)
1.0
1999
413 (8.0%)
30 (6.5%)
7.3
7 (6.9%)
1.7
2000
419 (8.2%)
41 (8.9%)
9.8
4 (4.0%)
1.0
2001
440 (8.6%)
32 (7.0%)
7.3
11 (10.9%)
2.5
2002
427 (8.3%)
46 (10.0%)
10.8
4 (4.0%)
0.9
2003
470 (9.1%)
50 (10.9%)
10.6
8 (7.9%)
1.7
2004
465 (9.1%)
40 (8.7%)
8.6
11 (10.9%)
2.4
2005
470 (9.1%)
44 (9.6%)
9.4
8 (7.9%)
1.7
2006
456 (8.9%)
37 (8.0%)
8.1
12 (11.9%)
2.6
2007
603 (11.7%)
55 (12.0%)
9.1
17 (16.8%)
2.8
2008
574 (11.2%)
54 (11.7%)
9.4
14 (13.9%)
2.4
Mean
467
42
8.9
9
1.9
SD
65
9
1.2
4
0.7
Minimum
401
30
7.3
4
0.9
Maximum
603
55
10.8
17
2.8

12.4 Results: Using OmniViz™ Galaxy Views

Figures 12.212.4 show Galaxy views of TMJD literature from 1998 to 2008 and they provide the visual assessment of the data in Table 12.2.

Table 12.2

Clusters IDs and labels of the TMJD literature. Distribution of publications, clinical trials, and systematic reviews
Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Cluster ID
Cluster Label (Major terms)
Publications (n = 5,138)
Clinical trials (n = 460)
Proportion clinical trials/publications (%)
Systematic reviews (n = 100)
Proportion systematic reviews/publications (%)
0
Disk, position, internal derangement
181 (3.5%)
3 (0.7%)
1.7
0 (0.0%)
0.0
1
Occlusion, denture, complete dentures
3 (0.1%)
0 (0.0%)
0.0
0 (0.0%)
0.0
2
Temporomandibular disorder, occlusion, headache
1000 (19.5%)
154 (33.5%)
15.4
28 (28.0%)
2.8
3
Temporomandibular disorder, occlusion, bruxism
349 (6.8%)
17 (3.7%)
4.9
18(18.0%)
5.2
4
Occlusion, contact, prothesis
117 (2.3%)
5 (1.1%)
4.3
6 (6.0)
5.1
5
Surgery, ankylosis, condylar
315 (6.1%)
7 (1.5%)
2.2
0 (0.0%)
0.0
6
Condylar, position, kinematic
54 (1.1%)
0 (0.0%)
0.0
0 (0.0%)
0.0
7
Surgery, MRI, internal derangement
872 (17.0%)
79 (17.2%)
9.1
14 (14.0%)
1.6
8
Occlusion, prosthesis, denture
21 (0.4%)
0 (0.0%)
0.0
0 (0.0%)
0.0
9
Stress, load, implant
20 (0.4%)
0 (0.0%)
0.0
0 (0.0%)
0.0
10
Myofascial pain, trigger points, headache
393 (7.6%)
90 (19.6%)
22.9
15 (15.0%)
3.8
11
Activity, electromyographic, position
67 (1.3%)
5 (1.1%)
7.5
0 (0.0%)
0.0
12
Condylar, occlusion, fracture
424 (8.3%)
27 (5.9%)
6.4
4 (4.0%)
0.9
13
Position, condylar, occlusion
138 (2.7%)
5 (1.1%)
3.6
0 (0.0%)
0.0
14
Activity, myofascial trigger points
120 (2.3%)
29 (6.3%)
24.2
3 (3.0%)
2.5
Temporomandibular disorder
15
Image, MRI, surgery
72 (1.4%)
4 (0.9%)
5.6
3 (3.0%)
4.2
16
Condylar, position, disk
216 (4.2%)
12 (2.6%)
5.6
4 (4.0%)
1.9
17
Surgery, fracture, condylar
75 (1.5%)
3 (0.7%)
4.0
0 (0.0%)
0.0
18
Cell, cartilage, gene
42 (0.8%)
0 (0.0%)
0.0
0 (0.0%)
0.0
19
Disk, internal derangement, surgery
659 (12.8%)
20 (4.3%)
3.0
5 (5.0%)
0.8
Mean
257
23
6.0
5
1.4
SD
288
40
7.1
8
1.9
Minimum
3
0
0.0
0
Nov 16, 2015 | Posted by in General Dentistry | Comments Off on Temporomandibular Joint Disorders, a Bibliometric Evidence-Based Approach to Analysis
Premium Wordpress Themes by UFO Themes