IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0163239.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Global Research Collaboration of Network Meta-Analysis: A Social Network Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Lun Li
  • Ferrán Catalá-López
  • Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo
  • Jinhui Tian
  • Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent
  • Dawid Pieper
  • Long Ge
  • Liang Yao
  • Quan Wang
  • Kehu Yang

Abstract

Background and Objective: Research collaborations in biomedical research have evolved over time. No studies have addressed research collaboration in network meta-analysis (NMA). In this study, we used social network analysis methods to characterize global collaboration patterns of published NMAs over the past decades. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched (at 9th July, 2015) to include systematic reviews incorporating NMA. Two reviewers independently selected studies and cross-checked the standardized data. Data was analyzed using Ucinet 6.0 and SPSS 17.0. NetDraw software was used to draw social networks. Results: 771 NMAs published in 336 journals from 3459 authors and 1258 institutions in 49 countries through the period 1997–2015 were included. More than three-quarters (n = 625; 81.06%) of the NMAs were published in the last 5-years. The BMJ (4.93%), Current Medical Research and Opinion (4.67%) and PLOS One (4.02%) were the journals that published the greatest number of NMAs. The UK and the USA (followed by Canada, China, the Netherlands, Italy and Germany) headed the absolute global productivity ranking in number of NMAs. The top 20 authors and institutions with the highest publication rates were identified. Overall, 43 clusters of authors (four major groups: one with 37 members, one with 12 members, one with 11 members and one with 10 members) and 21 clusters of institutions (two major groups: one with 62 members and one with 20 members) were identified. The most prolific authors were affiliated with academic institutions and private consulting firms. 181 consulting firms and pharmaceutical industries (14.39% of institutions) were involved in 199 NMAs (25.81% of total publications). Although there were increases in international and inter-institution collaborations, the research collaboration by authors, institutions and countries were still weak and most collaboration groups were small sizes. Conclusion: Scientific production on NMA is increasing worldwide with research leadership of Western countries (most notably, the UK, the USA and Canada). More authors, institutions and nations are becoming involved in research collaborations, but frequently with limited international collaborations.

Suggested Citation

  • Lun Li & Ferrán Catalá-López & Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo & Jinhui Tian & Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent & Dawid Pieper & Long Ge & Liang Yao & Quan Wang & Kehu Yang, 2016. "The Global Research Collaboration of Network Meta-Analysis: A Social Network Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0163239
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163239
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163239
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163239&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0163239?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guy J. Abel & Raya Muttarak & Valeria Bordone & Emilio Zagheni, 2019. "Bowling Together: Scientific Collaboration Networks of Demographers at European Population Conferences," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 35(3), pages 543-562, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0163239. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.