Open Access

Dengue research: a bibliometric analysis of worldwide and Arab publications during 1872–2015

Virology Journal201613:78

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-016-0534-2

Received: 16 March 2016

Accepted: 3 May 2016

Published: 6 May 2016

Abstract

Background

Dengue is an important emerging and re-emerging arboviral infection globally as a rapidly growing and widespread public health problem, with transmission occurring in more than 128 countries in Asia, Americas, southeast Africa, western Pacific, and eastern Mediterranean regions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to characterize and quantify the scientific output of dengue research in Arab countries relative to that worldwide by using a bibliometric analysis.

Methods

The standardized search approach based on the use of the the keyword “dengue” in the title, abstract, and keyword field was used to get research output related to dengue at a global level. All data related to dengue were collected from the past to December 31, 2015.

Results

A total of 19,581 dengue-related documents identified in the Scopus database. The results show that the study of dengue exhibits an overall upward trend from 1872 to 2015 with peak publications in 2014. The leading countries in dengue research were the USA (4,709; 24.05 %), India (1,942; 9.92 %), Brazil (1,530; 7.81 %), Thailand (1,260; 6.43 %), the UK (1,129; 5.77 %), and France (1,087; 5.55 %). Only 226 (1.16 % of the overall global research effort in the dengue field) articles were published from the Arab region. The total number of citations for all publications was 352,710, with an average of 18.0 citations per publication. Furthermore, the h-index for all extracted data related to dengue research was 186. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) was the most productive country in Arab region with 102 documents representing 45.1 %. Furthermore, the h-index for all extracted data related to dengue research was 27. The USA was Arab’s most main cooperative partner (46, 20.4 %), followed by India (36, 15.9 %).

Conclusions

The amount of literature related to dengue research has considerably increased over the last decade. This bibliometric analysis has demonstrated the leading role that the USA, India, Brazil, Thailand, the UK, and France play in dengue research. The Arab world produced fewer publications related to dengue with lower quality than other world countries.

Keywords

DengueBibliometricScopusArab worldCitations

Background

Dengue is an important emerging and re-emerging arboviral infection globally as a rapidly growing and widespread public health problem, with transmission occurring in more than 128 countries in Asia, Americas, southeast Africa, western Pacific, and eastern Mediterranean regions [1, 2]. It is estimated that each year, around 390 million people are infected with dengue, of which 96 million develop any level of disease severity [3], leading to approximately 21,000 deaths [3, 4]. The clinical spectrum of dengue infection can vary from asymptomatic to severe manifestations of haemorrhagic fever, hypovolaemic shock, and organ impairment [1, 5]. However, some cases are often accompanied with symptoms such as sore throat, arthralgia, febrile illness anorexia, headaches, myalgia, and a macular skin rash [68].

Dengue outbreaks worldwide have progressively increased [914], with recent outbreaks in the North Africa and Middle East regions [1, 15, 16]. In recent years, bibliometric analysis has been widely conducted to evaluate scientific research activities in many fields of infectious diseases such as chikungunya [17], Ebola virus disease [18, 19], influenza [20], John Cunningham virus [21], leishmaniasis [22, 23], Mayaro virus fever [24], Malaria [25], yellow fever disease [26], and Zika virus [27]. Bibliometrics is a statistical analysis of written publications and is used to provide quantitative and qualitative analysis of available data deposited at major multidisciplinary journal-indexing database such as Scopus.

Many research fields use bibliometric analysis to assess the scientific research patterns of publication year, document type, countries, journal, impact factors (IF), institution, number of citations, h-index, and international collaboration in global trends studies of specific fields [2834]. It is thought that health research productivity from Arab region is still lagging far behind compared to worldwide publishing production [3537]. Although the research output in some world regions such as India, China, and Brazil has been evaluated for dengue research [3840], no study has focused on the scientific output of dengue research in Arab countries relative to that worldwide. Therefore, the aim of this study was to characterize and quantify the scientific output of dengue research in Arab countries relative to that worldwide by using a bibliometric analysis.

Methods

Study design

This study used a bibliometric analysis based in previous studies [28, 30, 3234, 41].

Data source

This bibliometric study was built on April 2, 2016 based on the online version of Scopus database, which was developed by Elsevier. Note that there are several other databases that could be used in the bibliometric analysis including Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed. However, this study only focuses on the data of Scopus which are assumed to be of the largest database [42, 43].

Search strategy

For bibliometric analysis, the standardized search approach based on the use of the the keyword “dengue” in the title, abstract, and keyword field was used to get research output related to dengue at a global level. All data related to dengue were collected from the past to December 31, 2015. For further analysis, data retrieved from Scopus were limited to Arab countries, including 22 countries (The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Oman, Iraq, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Syrian Arab Republic, Lebanon, Qatar, Palestine, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Kuwait, Bahrain, Sudan, Yemen, Mauritania, Somalia, Djibouti, and Comoros). The analysed bibliometric indicators included publication year, document type, language of publications, publication distribution by countries/territories, journal, impact factors (IF), institution, number of citations, h-index, and international collaboration. As the 2016 data did not represent a complete year, such data were excluded from the analysis. Furthermore, items coded as errata were excluded from further analysis.

Ethical issues

As there were no humans involved in this study, research using existing data from secondary sources is considered it to be exempt from the institutional review board (IRB) approval process.

Data analysis

Data downloaded from Scopus were and organized into Microsoft Excel 2007 and then be used for further analysis to get the ten top-ranked for most bibliometric indicators and they were appeared in descending order from 1 to 10 using the standard competition ranking (SCR); (1–2–2–4 rule). Descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency, percentage, sum, and average. The h-index and IF had been used to assess the quality and quantity of research output. The h-index was introduced in bibliometric analysis by Hirsch [44] to illustrate the scientific output of a country, organization, researcher, etc. Therefore, the h-index covers both the quantity (number of publications) and the impact (number of citations) [4547]. The impact factor for journals was obtained from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) © Ranking: 2014 [48].

Results

There were a total of 19,581 dengue-related documents identified in the Scopus database that were published between 1872 and 2015. These documents were published from the across 12 document types. There were 14,434 paper articles comprising 73.71 % of the total production, followed by reviews (10.26 %), and letters (4.31 %). Other document types such as editorial materials, proceedings papers, notes, and book reviews covered approximately 11.73 % of the published literature. The total publications per year are demonstrated in Fig. 1. The results at global level show that the study of dengue exhibits an overall upward trend from 1872 to 2015 with peak publications in 2014 (data in 2015 may be incomplete as the databases lag, thus, the number of research output in 2015 may be increasing). In the included years, the number of Scopus publications increased very slowly until 1990, and then the numbers of publications noticeably increased after 2000. The publications identified were published in 34 languages. The most commonly used language were English (90.33 %), Spanish (3.57 %), and French (2.59 %).
Fig. 1

Numbers of dengue research literature trends in Scopus between 1872 and 2015 at the global and Arab levels

Table 1 illustrates the top 10 countries in terms of absolute research production, their h-index and number of publication from international collaboration. The leading countries in dengue research were the USA (4,709; 24.05 %), India (1,942; 9.92 %), Brazil (1,530; 7.81 %), Thailand (1,260; 6.43 %), the UK (1,129; 5.77 %), and France (1,087; 5.55 %). As expected, most publications related to dengue were carried out in North America, Europe, South Asia, and Latin America. This bibliometric analysis has demonstrated the leading role that the USA, India, Brazil, Thailand, the UK, and France play in dengue research (Table 1).
Table 1

Top 10 most prolific countries of publications related to dengue in the world during 1872–2015 (n = 19,581)

SCR

Countries

Articles (%)

h-index

Collaborations with foreign countries

Number (%)a of publications with international authors

1st

United States

4,709 (24.05)

159

146

2,030 (43.11)

2nd

India

1,942 (9.92)

52

106

1,012 (52.11)

3rd

Brazil

1,530 (7.81)

60

113

440 (28.76)

4th

Thailand

1,260 (6.43)

78

69

662 (52.54)

5th

United Kingdom

1,129 (5.77)

92

126

803 (71.12)

6th

France

1,087 (5.55)

76

147

609 (56.03)

7th

Australia

783 (4.00)

68

100

393 (50.19)

8th

Singapore

774 (3.95)

59

104

372 (48.06)

9th

Malaysia

628 (3.21)

39

108

209 (33.28)

10h

Japan

618 (3.16)

48

53

289 (46.76)

SCR Standard competition ranking

aPercentage of publications with international authors from the total number of publications for each country

In case of number of publications with multinational researchers, France tops the list with 147 countries, followed by the USA with 146 countries, and the UK with 126 countries. Furthermore, the UK (71.12 %) had the highest percentage of documents in collaboration, followed by 56.03 % for France, 52.54 % for Thailand, and 52.11 % for India from the total number of documents for each country. The total number of citations for all publications was 352,710, with an average of 18.0 citations per publication. Furthermore, the h-index for all extracted data related to dengue research was 186. The best h-index value is achieved by the USA (159) followed by the UK (92), Thailand (78), and France (76); (Table 1).

The Arab world produced fewer publications related to dengue. Only 226 (1.16 % of the overall global research effort in the dengue field) articles were published from the Arab region across 7 document types. There were 187 paper articles comprising 82.7 % of the total production, followed by reviews (7.5 %), and letters (3.1 %). Editorial materials, proceedings papers, notes, and book reviews covered approximately 6.7 % of the published literature. The total publications per year are demonstrated in Fig. 1. The results from Arab world show that the study of dengue exhibits an overall upward trend from 1968 to 2015 with peak publications in 2015. Table 2 shows that KSA was the most productive country with 102 documents representing 45.1 %, followed by Egypt (58; 25.7 %), Sudan (21; 9.3 %), and Kuwait (21; 9.3 %). No published data related to dengue were available from Comoros, and Mauritania. In Arab world, KSA and Egypt were at positions 34 and 46 respectively. The Arab countries have cooperated with 87 countries/ territories in the field of dengue research. The most internationally collaborative countries/ territories appears in Fig. 2. The total number of citations that got for publications (n = 133) from collaboration was 1,918. The USA was Arab’s most main cooperative partner (46, 20.4 %), followed by India (36, 15.9 %), France (19, 8.4 %) and Malaysia (18, 8 %). The total number of citations for all publications was 2,683, with an average of 12 citations per publication. Furthermore, the h-index for all extracted data related to dengue research was 27. In addition, Egypt achieved the highest h-index (value of h-index =15).
Table 2

Bibliometric analysis of the 226 documents from the Arab world during 1968–2015

SCRa

Countries

Total number of articles for the whole period (%)

h-index

Number of documents with international collaboration

1st

KSA

102 (45.1)

11

68

2nd

Egypt

58 (25.7)

15

49

3rd

Sudan

21 (9.3)

8

11

3rd

Kuwait

21 (9.3)

11

14

5th

Tunisia

14 (6.2)

7

11

6th

UAE

10 (4.4)

6

8

6th

Oman

10 (4.4)

3

5

8th

Yemen

7 (3.1)

5

7

8th

Morocco

7 (3.1)

5

3

10th

Qatar

6 (2.7)

2

6

11th

Jordan

5 (2.2)

5

4

11th

Bahrain

5 (2.2)

2

4

13th

Algeria

4 (1.8)

2

3

13th

Lebanon

4 (1.8)

3

3

15th

Palestine

3 (1.3)

3

3

16th

Iraq

2 (0.9)

2

2

16th

Somalia

2 (0.9)

2

2

16th

SAR

2 (0.9)

2

2

16th

Djibouti

2 (0.9)

1

1

20th

LAJ

1 (0.4)

1

1

SCR Standard competition ranking, KSA Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, UAE United Arab Emirates, SAR Syrian Arab Republic, LAJ Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

aEqual countries have the same ranking number, and then a gap is left in the ranking numbers

Fig. 2

The most 11 internationally collaborative countries/territories with Arab world

The top 10 most productive journals based on the number of publication at global level were analyzed (Table 3). The 10 most prolific journals together produced 3,535 publications, comprising 18.05 % of worldwide researchers’ contributions during 1872–2015. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene published the most publications (755, 3.86 %) by worldwide researchers, followed by the Plos Neglected Tropical Diseases, with 494 (2.52 %), Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health with 393 (2.01), and Plos One with 391 (2.00 %). Most journals in the list of the top ranking journals (9 journals out of 10) had IF. The IF for journals ranged from 0.719–6.751. Furthermore, the top 10 most productive journals based on the number of publication at Arab world level were analyzed (Table 4). The 10 most prolific journals together produced 67 papers, comprising 29.6 % of Arab authors’ contributions during 1968–2015. The Parasitology Research, and Dengue Bulletin published the most publications (9 publications for each journal, (4.0 %)) by Arab authors, followed by the Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, with 7 (3.1 %). Most journals in the list of the top ranking journals (7 journals out of 11) had IF. The IF for journals ranged from 1.839 to 3.247.
Table 3

The 10 most published journals worldwide during 1968–2015 (n = 19,581)

SCR

Journal

Frequency (%)

IFa

1st

American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

755 (3.86)

2.699

1st

Plos Neglected Tropical Diseases

494 (2.52)

4.446

3rd

Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health

393 (2.01)

0.719

4th

Plos One

391 (2.00)

3.234

5th

Journal of Virology

380 (1.94)

4.439

6th

Dengue Bulletin

254 (1.30)

NA

7th

Virology

229 (1.17)

3.321

8th

Emerging Infectious Diseases

223 (1.14)

6.751

9th

Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

212 (1.08)

1.839

10th

Vaccine

204 (1.04)

3.624

SCR Standard competition ranking, NA Not available, IF Impact factor

aThe impact factor was reported according to the journal citation reports (JCR) 2014

Table 4

The 10 most published journals from the Arab world during 1968–2015 (n = 226)

SCRa

Journal

Frequency (%)

IFb

1st

Parasitology Research

9 (4.0)

2.098

1st

Dengue Bulletin

9 (4.0)

NA

3rd

Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal

7 (3.1)

NA

4th

Journal of Infection and Public Health

6 (2.7)

NA

4th

Biosciences Biotechnology Research Asia

6 (2.7)

NA

4th

American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

6 (2.7)

2.699

4th

Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

6 (2.7)

1.839

8th

Journal of Medical Virology

5 (2.2)

2.347

8th

BMC Infectious Diseases

5 (2.2)

2.613

10th

Plos One

4 (1.8)

3.234

10th

FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology

4 (1.8)

3.078

SCR Standard competition ranking, NA Not available, IF Impact factor

aEqual journals have the same ranking number, and then a gap is left in the ranking numbers

bThe impact factor was reported according to the journal citation reports (JCR) 2014

At global level, the number of citations ranged from 1451 for the top cited article to 645 for the 10th. The most frequently cited article was published in 1998 in Clinical Microbiology Reviews (IF = 17.406) by Gubler [49], and cited 1451 times in Scopus database. The other 9 publications that were the most frequently cited in the field of dengue research at global level are shown in Table 5 [3, 4957]. At Arab level, the number of citations ranged from 162 for the top cited article to 59 for the 10th. The most frequently cited article was published in 2006 in Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (IF = 1.839, 2014) by Boutayeb [58], and cited 162 times in Scopus database. The other 9 publications that were the most frequently cited in the field of dengue research at Arab level are shown in Table 6 [5967].
Table 5

Top 10 most cited articles in Scopus related to dengue worldwide

SCR

Authors

Title

Year of publication

Source title

Cited by

1st

Gubler [49]

Dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever

1998

Clinical Microbiology Reviews

1451

2nd

Bhatt et al. [3]

The global distribution and burden of dengue

2013

Nature

991

3rd

Halstead [50]

Pathogenesis of dengue: Challenges to molecular biology

1988

Science

991

4th

Lanciotti et al. [51]

Rapid detection and typing of dengue viruses from clinical samples by using reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction

1992

Journal of Clinical Microbiology

896

5th

Vaughn et al. [52]

Dengue viremia titer, antibody response pattern, and virus serotype correlate with disease severity

2000

Journal of Infectious Diseases

807

6th

Gubler [53]

Epidemic dengue/dengue hemorrhagic fever as a public health, social and economic problem in the 21st century

2002

Trends in Microbiology

749

7th

Halstead [54]

Dengue

2007

Lancet

720

8th

Guzmán and Kourí [55]

Dengue: An update

2002

Lancet Infectious Diseases

718

9th

Kuhn et al. [56]

Structure of dengue virus: Implications for flavivirus organization, maturation, and fusion

2002

Cell

682

10th

Mackenzie et al. [57]

Emerging flaviviruses: The spread and resurgence of Japanese encephalitis, West Nile and dengue viruses

2004

Nature Medicine

645

SCR Standard competition ranking

Table 6

Top 10 most cited articles in Scopus related to dengue from Arab world

SCRa

Authors

Title

Year of publication

Source title

Cited by

1st

Boutayeb [58]

The double burden of communicable and non-communicable diseases in developing countries

2006

Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

162

2nd

Chaturvedi et al. [59]

Cytokine cascade in dengue hemorrhagic fever: Implications for pathogenesis

2000

FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology

156

3rd

Raghupathy et al. [60]

Elevated levels of IL–8 in dengue hemorrhagic fever

1998

Journal of Medical Virology

108

4th

Graham et al. [61]

A prospective seroepidemiologic study on dengue in children four to nine years of age in Yogyakarta, Indonesia I. Studies in 1995–1996

1999

American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

104

5th

Agarwal et al. [62]

A clinical study of the patients with dengue hemorrhagic fever during the epidemic of 1996 at Lucknow, India

1999

Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health

80

6th

Moutailler et al. [63]

Potential vectors of rift valley fever virus in the Mediterranean region

2008

Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases

70

7th

Chaturvedi et al. [64]

Sequential production of cytokines by dengue virus-infected human peripheral blood leukocyte cultures

1999

Journal of Medical Virology

68

7th

Mustafa et al. [66]

Elevated levels of interleukin–13 and IL–18 in patients with dengue hemorrhagic fever

2001

FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology

68

9th

Abubakar et al. [65]

Global perspectives for prevention of infectious diseases associated with mass gatherings

2012

The Lancet Infectious Diseases

63

10th

Barniol et al. [67]

Usefulness and applicability of the revised dengue case classification by disease: Multi-centre study in 18 countries

2011

BMC Infectious Diseases

59

SCR Standard competition ranking

aEqual articles have the same ranking number, and then a gap is left in the ranking numbers

Table 7 provides a list of the top 10 most productive institutes at global level between 1872 and 2015. Mahidol University in Thailand ranked first in the number of publications (620, 3.17 %), followed by Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz in Brazil (495, 2.53 %), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the USA (395, 2.02 %). At Arab level, the top 10 most productive institutions for total publications are shown in Table 8. King Abdulaziz University in KSA ranked first in the number of publications (32, 14.2 %), followed by U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit No. 3 in Egypt (17, 7.5 %), Ministry of Health in KSA (17, 7.5 %), and Faculty of Medicine in Kuwait (17, 7.5 %).
Table 7

The top 10 most productive institutes at global level

SCR

Institution, country

No. of documents (%)

1st

Mahidol University, Thailand

620 (3.17)

2nd

Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz, Brazil

495 (2.53)

3rd

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USA

395 (2.02)

4th

Instituto de Medicina Tropical Pedro Kouri, Cuba

309 (1.58)

5th

University of Malaya, Malaysia

297 (1.52)

6th

Institut Pasteur, Paris, France

294 (1.50)

7th

Universidade de Sao Paulo – USP, Brazil

274 (1.40)

8th

Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, USA

255 (1.30)

9th

Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences, Thailand

250 (1.28)

10th

University of Oxford, UK

230 (1.17)

SCR Standard competition ranking

Table 8

The top 10 most productive institutes from or collaborating with Arab world affiliations during the study period

SCRa

Institution, country

No. of documents (%)

1st

King Abdulaziz University, KSA

32 (14.2)

2nd

U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit No. 3 (NAMRU–3), Egypt

17 (7.5)

2nd

Ministry of Health, KSA

17 (7.5)

2nd

Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait

17 (7.5)

5th

Organisation Mondiale de la Sante, Switzerland

14 (6.2)

6th

Umm Al Qura University, KSA

10 (4.4)

6th

King George’s Medical University, India

10 (4.4)

6th

Universita di Pisa, Italy

10 (4.4)

9th

King Saud University, KSA

9 (4.0)

10th

Bharathiar University, India

8 (3.5)

10th

Universita degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza, Italy

8 (3.5)

SCR Standard competition ranking, KSA Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

aEqual institutes have the same ranking number, and then a gap is left in the ranking numbers

Discussion

In this study, I employed a bibliometric approach to analyse the research trends of dengue at global level and in the Arab world. The publications on dengue presented a solid growth with an increasing number of articles. This bibliometric analysis has demonstrated the leading role that the USA, India, Brazil, Thailand, the UK, and France play in dengue research. USA was the leading country in research output on dengue. Although the number of dengue outbreaks in the USA there is less than in other countries [3], these findings are in line with those of previous studies, especially those in other infectious fields [17, 18, 23, 24]. Overall, Brazil, India, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, and Australia, accounted for most of the dengue research activity at global level. A possible explanation for these results may be due to high prevalence of dengue in these countries which faced many outbreaks [6874]. Another possible explanation for these findings could be recognized to the number of researchers and development of scientific research system in these countries. However, only KSA and Egypt among Arab countries ranked among the first 50 countries in terms of worldwide contribution to research productivity in the dengue. Among the Arab countries, KSA and Egypt achieved the top rank. High national incomes and large populations and are the most probable reasons for this achievement. These results are consistent with data obtained from previous studies, especially those in medical fields [29, 31, 37, 7581]. Publications from Arab world received lower citation rate than that from the world; because researchers from Arab world have published their work in scientific journals with slightly lower citation rates or without IF such as Dengue Bulletin, Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, Journal of Infection and Public Health; and Biosciences Biotechnology Research Asia. These findings are in line with those of previous studies [75, 77, 78, 82].

The current study designed to recognize scientific collaborations between Arab countries and non-Arab countries. The USA was Arab’s most main cooperative partner. These results match those observed in earlier studies in the field of ophthalmology [77], and in the field of substance use disorders [83]. In addition, country with highest collaboration with researchers in India in dengue research was USA [84]. The investigation of publication output recognized several successful cases of researcher collaboration between Arab countries and Western Europe (France and Italy) and the Asiatic region (i.e. India and Malaysia). At the global level, the USA got a leadership position in dengue research with the largest publication followed by India [85]. Dengue disease has no borders and prevention; eradication and control of this disease requires worldwide efforts. Health-care systems in the Arab region are low priority in national spending plans and are perceived as being non-productive [86, 87]. Arab region has been the source of most fatal infectious diseases (e.g. Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, West Nile Virus, and leishmaniasis), and they should heavily participate and cooperate in research in order to combat them [75]. The Arab countries have cooperated with 87 countries in the field of dengue research.

The current study is the first to assess the quantity and quality of global research effort in the dengue field worldwide and from Arab world. The most important limitation lies in the fact that the Scopus database only was used to extract data related to dengue. Articles published in non Scopus-cited journals were not studied, but it is interesting to note that the Scopus has several advantages more than others, as it is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature [42, 43, 88].

Conclusions

Based on 19,581 dengue-related documents from Scopus, this bibliometric analysis provided an overview of research in dengue and recognized some noteworthy issues in this field during the search period. The amount of literature related to dengue research has considerably increased over the last decade. This bibliometric analysis has demonstrated the leading role that the USA, India, Brazil, Thailand, the UK, and France play in dengue research. The Arab world produced fewer publications related to dengue with lower quality than other world countries. The result shows that KSA plays a leading role in dengue research through the number of publications with international collaboration in Arab world. The USA was Arab’s leading internationally collaborative country, followed by India, France and Malaysia. Multinational collaboration can help dengue research get more international attention. More research is required to recognize what societal and individual level factors were involved in raising such a remarkable increase in quantity of dengue research in the last decade. Arab researchers especially in countries who at risk with dengue disease need to take the lead and promote research projects in this field of infection as an important public health concern.

Abbreviations

IF: 

impact factor

IRB: 

institutional review board

JCR: 

Journal citation reports

KSA: 

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

SCR: 

Standard competition ranking

Declarations

Funding sources

No funding was received for writing this study.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Poison Control and Drug Information Center (PCDIC), College of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University
(2)
Department of Clinical and Community Pharmacy, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University

References

  1. Guzman MG, Harris E. Dengue. Lancet. 2015;385:453–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Wilder-Smith A, Byass P. The elusive global burden of dengue. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016. Article in press.Google Scholar
  3. Bhatt S, Gething PW, Brady OJ, Messina JP, Farlow AW, Moyes CL, Drake JM, Brownstein JS, Hoen AG, Sankoh O, et al. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature. 2013;496:504–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Fibriansah G, Lok SM. The development of therapeutic antibodies against dengue virus. Antiviral Res. 2016;128:7–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Jaenisch T, Tam DT, Kieu NT, Van Ngoc T, Nam NT, Van Kinh N, Yacoub S, Chanpheaktra N, Kumar V, See LL, et al. Clinical evaluation of dengue and identification of risk factors for severe disease: protocol for a multicentre study in 8 countries. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:120.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. John TJ. Dengue fever and dengue haemorrhagic fever. Lancet. 2003;361:181–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Rigau-Pérez JG, Clark GG, Gubler DJ, Reiter P, Sanders EJ, Vorndam AV. Dengue and dengue haemorrhagic fever. Lancet. 1998;352:971–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Murray NE, Quam MB, Wilder-Smith A. Epidemiology of dengue: past, present and future prospects. Clin Epidemiol. 2013;5:299–309.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Gordon Smith CE. A localized outbreak of dengue fever in Kuala Lumpur: epidemiological and clinical aspects. Med J Malaya. 1956;10:289–303.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnston D, Viray M, Ushiroda J, Whelen AC, Sciulli R, Gose R, Lee R, Honda E, Park SY, Hawaii Dengue Response T. Notes from the field: outbreak of locally acquired cases of dengue fever - Hawaii, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65:34–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Khan J, Khan I, Amin I. A comprehensive entomological, serological and molecular study of 2013 dengue outbreak of swat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0147416.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Lin YP, Luo Y, Chen Y, Lamers MM, Zhou Q, Yang XH, Sanyal S, Mok CK, Liu ZM. Clinical and epidemiological features of the 2014 large-scale dengue outbreak in Guangzhou city, China. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:102.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Quam MB, Sessions O, Kamaraj US, Rocklov J, Wilder-Smith A. Dissecting Japan’s dengue outbreak in 2014. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;94:409–12.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Shen SQ, Wei HX, Fu YH, Zhang H, Mo QY, Wang XJ, Deng SQ, Zhao W, Liu Y, Feng XS. Multiple sources of infection and potential endemic characteristics of the large outbreak of dengue in Guangdong in 2014. Sci Rep. 2015;5:16913.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Al Awaidy ST, Al Obeidani I, Bawikar S, Al Mahrouqi S, Al Busaidy SS, Al Baqlani S, Patel PK. Dengue epidemiological trend in Oman: a 13-year national surveillance and strategic proposition of imported cases. Trop Doct. 2014;44:190–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Stanaway JD, Shepard DS, Undurraga EA, Halasa YA, Coffeng LE, Brady OJ, Hay SI, Bedi N, Bensenor IM, Castaneda-Orjuela CA, et al. The global burden of dengue: an analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016. Article in Press.Google Scholar
  17. Vera-Polania F, Munoz-Urbano M, Banol-Giraldo AM, Jimenez-Rincon M, Granados-Alvarez S, Rodriguez-Morales AJ. Bibliometric assessment of scientific production of literature on chikungunya. J Infect Public Health. 2015;8:386–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Cruz-Calderón S, Nasner-Posso KM, Alfaro-Toloza P, Paniz-Mondolfi AE, Rodriguez-Morales AJ. A bibliometric analysis of global Ebola research. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2015;13:202–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Zhao XY, Sheng L, Diao TX, Zhang Y, Wang L, Yanjun Z. Knowledge mapping analysis of Ebola research. Bratisl Lek Listy. 2015;116:729–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Fricke R, Uibel S, Klingelhoefer D, Groneberg DA. Influenza: a scientometric and density-equalizing analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:454.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Zheng HC, Yan L, Cui L, Guan YF, Takano Y. Mapping the history and current situation of research on John Cunningham virus - a bibliometric analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2009;9:28.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Perilla-Gonzalez Y, Gomez-Suta D, Delgado-Osorio N, Hurtado-Hurtado N, Baquero-Rodriguez JD, Lopez-Isaza AF, Lagos-Grisales GJ, Villegas S, Rodriguez-Morales AJ. Study of the scientific production on leishmaniasis in Latin America. Recent Pat Antiinfect Drug Discov. 2014;9:216–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Ramos JM, Gonzalez-Alcaide G, Bolanos-Pizarro M. Bibliometric analysis of leishmaniasis research in Medline (1945–2010). Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:55.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Patiño-Barbosa A, Bedoya-Arias JE, Cardona-Ospina JA, Rodriguez-Morales AJ. Bibliometric assessment of the scientific production of literature regarding Mayaro. J Infect Public Health. 2015. Article in Press.Google Scholar
  25. Munoz-Urbano M, Lopez-Isaza AF, Hurtado-Hurtado N, Gomez-Suta D, Murillo-Abadia J, Delgado-Osorio N, Lagos-Grisales GJ, Villegas S, Medina-Morales DA, Rodriguez-Morales AJ. Scientific research in malaria: bibliometric assessment of the Latin-American contributions. Recent Pat Antiinfect Drug Discov. 2014;9:209–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Bundschuh M, Groneberg DA, Klingelhoefer D, Gerber A. Yellow fever disease: density equalizing mapping and gender analysis of international research output. Parasit Vectors. 2013;6:331.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Martinez-Pulgarin DF, Acevedo-Mendoza WF, Cardona-Ospina JA, Rodriguez-Morales AJ, Paniz-Mondolfi AE. A bibliometric analysis of global zika research. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2016;14:55–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Zyoud SH. Bibliometric analysis on global Catha edulis (khat) research production during the period of 1952–2014. Glob Health. 2015;11:39.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM. Scientific publications from Arab world in leading journals of integrative and complementary medicine: a bibliometric analysis. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2015;15:308.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Al-Khalil S, Alqub M, Awang R. Global methaemoglobinaemia research output (1940–2013): a bibliometric analysis. Springerplus. 2015;4:626.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Al-Khalil S, Zyoud SH, Sawalha AF, Awang R. The Arab world’s contribution to solid waste literature: a bibliometric analysis. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2015;10:35.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Awang R, Waring WS. Global research productivity of N-acetylcysteine use in paracetamol overdose: a bibliometric analysis (1976–2012). Hum Exp Toxicol. 2015;34:1006–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Awang R, Waring WS. Bibliometric profile of the global scientific research on methanol poisoning (1902–2012). J Occup Med Toxicol. 2015;10:17.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Waring WS. Scientific research related to calcium channel blockers poisoning: bibliometric analysis in Scopus, 1968–2012. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2015;34:1162–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. El-Azami-El-Idrissi M, Lakhdar-Idrissi M, Ouldim K, Bono W, Amarti-Riffi A, Hida M, Nejjari C. Improving medical research in the Arab world. Lancet. 2013;382:2066–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Tadmouri GO, Bissar-Tadmouri N. Biomedical publications in an unstable region: the Arab world, 1988–2002. Lancet. 2003;362:1766.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Benamer HT, Bakoush O. Arab nations lagging behind other Middle Eastern countries in biomedical research: a comparative study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:26.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Vera-Polania F, Perilla-Gonzalez Y, Martinez-Pulgarin DF, Baquero-Rodriguez JD, Munoz-Urbano M, Lagos-Gallego M, Lagos-Grisales GJ, Villegas S, Rodriguez-Morales AJ. Bibliometric assessment of the Latin-American contributions in dengue. Recent Pat Antiinfect Drug Discov. 2014;9:195–201.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Bhardwaj RK. Dengue fever: a bibliometric analysis of India’s contributions to the research literature of this dangerous tropical disease. Sci Tech Libr. 2014;33:289–301.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Vellaichamy A, Jeyshankar R. Dengue research in India and China: a comparative study using bibliometrics. Int J Lib Sci Inf Manag. 2015;1:1–9.Google Scholar
  41. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM. Worldwide research productivity of paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning: a bibliometric analysis (2003–2012). Hum Exp Toxicol. 2015;34:12–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22:338–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW. Comparisons of citations in Web of science, Scopus, and Google scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2009;302:1092–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:16569–72.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Birks Y, Fairhurst C, Bloor K, Campbell M, Baird W, Torgerson D. Use of the h-index to measure the quality of the output of health services researchers. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2014;19:102–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Miroiu A. Axiomatizing the Hirsch index: quantity and quality disjoined. J Informetr. 2013;7:10–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Abdelrahman T, Brown J, Wheat J, Thomas C, Lewis W. Hirsch index value and variability related to general surgery in a UK deanery. J Surg Educ. 2016;73:111–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomson Reuters. 2014 Journal Citation Reports®. 2015 [cited 2015 November 13]; Available from: http://www.isiknowledge.com.
  49. Gubler DJ. Dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1998;11:480–96.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Halstead SB. Pathogenisis of dengue: challenges to molecular biology. Science. 1988;239:476–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Lanciotti RS, Calisher CH, Gubler DJ, Chang GJ, Vorndam AV. Rapid detection and typing of dengue viruses from clinical samples by using reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. J Clin Microbiol. 1992;30:545–51.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Vaughn DW, Green S, Kalayanarooj S, Innis BL, Nimmannitya S, Suntayakorn S, Endy TP, Raengsakulrach B, Rothman AL, Ennis FA, Nisalak A. Dengue viremia titer, antibody response pattern, and virus serotype correlate with disease severity. J Infect Dis. 2000;181:2–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Gubler DJ. Epidemic dengue/dengue hemorrhagic fever as a public health, social and economic problem in the 21st century. Trends Microbiol. 2002;10:100–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Halstead SB. Dengue. Lancet. 2007;370:1644–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Guzmán MG, Kouri G. Dengue: an update. Lancet Infect Dis. 2002;2:33–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Kuhn RJ, Zhang W, Rossmann MG, Pletnev SV, Corver J, Lenches E, Jones CT, Mukhopadhyay S, Chipman PR, Strauss EG. Structure of dengue virus: implications for flavivirus organization, maturation, and fusion. Cell. 2002;108:717–25.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Mackenzie JS, Gubler DJ, Petersen LR. Emerging flaviviruses: the spread and resurgence of Japanese encephalitis, West Nile and dengue viruses. Nat Med. 2004;10:S98–109.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Boutayeb A. The double burden of communicable and non-communicable diseases in developing countries. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2006;100:191–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Chaturvedi UC, Agarwal R, Elbishbishi EA, Mustafa AS. Cytokine cascade in dengue hemorrhagic fever: implications for pathogenesis. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2000;28:183–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Raghupathy R, Chaturvedi UC, Al-Sayer H, Elbishbishi EA, Agarwal R, Nagar R, Kapoor S, Misra A, Mathur A, Nusrat H, et al. Elevated levels of IL-8 in dengue hemorrhagic fever. J Med Virol. 1998;56:280–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Graham RR, Juffrie M, Tan R, Hayes CG, Laksono I, Ma’roef C, Erlin, Sutaryo, Porter KR, Halstead SB. A prospective seroepidemiologic study on dengue in children four to nine years of age in Yogyakarta, Indonesia I. studies in 1995–1996. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1999;61:412–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Agarwal R, Kapoor S, Nagar R, Misra A, Tandon R, Mathur A, Misra AK, Srivastava KL, Chaturvedi UC. A clinical study of the patients with dengue hemorrhagic fever during the epidemic of 1996 at Lucknow, India. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 1999;30:735–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Moutailler S, Krida G, Schaffner F, Vazeille M, Failloux AB. Potential vectors of Rift Valley fever virus in the Mediterranean region. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2008;8:749–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Chaturvedi UC, Elbishbishi EA, Agarwal R, Raghupathy R, Nagar R, Tandon R, Pacsa AS, Younis OI, Azizieh F. Sequential production of cytokines by dengue virus-infected human peripheral blood leukocyte cultures. J Med Virol. 1999;59:335–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Abubakar I, Gautret P, Brunette GW, Blumberg L, Johnson D, Poumerol G, Memish ZA, Barbeschi M, Khan AS. Global perspectives for prevention of infectious diseases associated with mass gatherings. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12:66–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Mustafa AS, Elbishbishi EA, Agarwal R, Chaturvedi UC. Elevated levels of interleukin-13 and IL-18 in patients with dengue hemorrhagic fever. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2001;30:229–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Barniol J, Gaczkowski R, Barbato EV, da Cunha RV, Salgado D, Martinez E, Segarra CS, Pleites Sandoval EB, Mishra A, Laksono IS, et al. Usefulness and applicability of the revised dengue case classification by disease: multi-centre study in 18 countries. BMC Infect Dis. 2011;11:106.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Giraldo D, Sant’Anna C, Perisse AR, March Mde F, Souza AP, Mendes A, Bonfim M, Hofer CB. Characteristics of children hospitalized with dengue fever in an outbreak in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2011;105:601–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Rohani A, Aidil Azahary AR, Malinda M, Zurainee MN, Rozilawati H, Wan Najdah WM, Lee HL. Eco-virological survey of Aedes mosquito larvae in selected dengue outbreak areas in Malaysia. J Vector Borne Dis. 2014;51:327–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Ahmed NH, Broor S. Dengue fever outbreak in Delhi, North India: a clinico-epidemiological study. Indian J Community Med. 2015;40:135–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Tuntaprasart W, Barbazan P, Nitatpattana N, Rongsriyam Y, Yoksan S, Gonzalez JP. Seroepidemiological survey among schoolchildren during the 2000–2001 dengue outbreak of Ratchaburi Province, Thailand. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2003;34:564–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Ooi EE, Wilder-Smith A, Ng LC, Gubler DJ. The 2007 dengue outbreak in Singapore. Epidemiol Infect. 2010;138:958–9. author reply 959–961.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Churrotin S, Kotaki T, Sucipto TH, Ahwanah NL, Deka PT, Mulyatno KC, Utami DA, Ranasasmita R, Soegijanto S, Kameoka M. Dengue virus type 1 strain isolated in Indonesia shows a close phylogenetic relationship with the strains that caused the autochthonous dengue outbreak in Japan in 2014. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2016. Article in Press.Google Scholar
  74. Seed CR, Kiely P, Hyland CA, Keller AJ. The risk of dengue transmission by blood during a 2004 outbreak in Cairns, Australia. Transfusion. 2009;49:1482–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Sweileh WM, Al-Jabi SW, Abuzanat A, Sawalha AF, AbuTaha AS, Ghanim MA, Zyoud SH. Assessment of research productivity of Arab countries in the field of infectious diseases using Web of Science database. Infect Dis Poverty. 2015;4:2.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Sweileh WM, Al-Jabi SW, Sawalha AF, Zyoud SH. Bibliometric analysis of nutrition and dietetics research activity in Arab countries using ISI Web of Science database. Springerplus. 2014;3:718.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  77. Sweileh WM, Al-Jabi SW, Shanti YI, Sawalha AF, Zyoud SH. Contribution of Arab researchers to ophthalmology: a bibliometric and comparative analysis. Springerplus. 2015;4:42.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  78. Sweileh WM, Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sawalha AF. Quantity and quality of obesity-related research in Arab countries: assessment and comparative analysis. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:33.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  79. Sweileh WM, Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sawalha AF. Assessing urology and nephrology research activity in Arab countries using ISI web of science bibliometric database. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7:258.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  80. Sweileh WM, Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sawalha AF. Contribution of Arab countries to breast cancer research: comparison with non-Arab Middle Eastern countries. BMC Womens Health. 2015;15:25.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  81. Sweileh WM, Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sawalha AF. Public, environmental, and occupational health research activity in Arab countries: bibliometric, citation, and collaboration analysis. Arch Public Health. 2015;73:1.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  82. Sweileh WM, Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sawalha AF. Bibliometric analysis of diabetes mellitus research output from Middle Eastern Arab countries during the period (1996–2012). Scientometrics. 2014;101:819–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  83. Sweileh WM, Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sawalha AF. Substance use disorders in Arab countries: research activity and bibliometric analysis. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2014;9:33.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  84. Gupta R, Tiwari R, Ammed KM. Dengue research in India: a scientometric analysis of publications, 2003–12. Int J Med Public Health. 2014;4:1–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  85. Dutt B, Kumar S, Garg KC. Scientometric profile of global dengue research. Collnet J Scientometrics Inf Manage. 2010;4:81–91.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  86. Mokdad AH, Jaber S, Aziz MI, AlBuhairan F, AlGhaithi A, AlHamad NM, Al-Hooti SN, Al-Jasari A, AlMazroa MA, AlQasmi AM, et al. The state of health in the Arab world, 1990–2010: an analysis of the burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. Lancet. 2014;383:309–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Alwan A. Responding to priority health challenges in the Arab world. Lancet. 2014;383:284–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Bakkalbasi N, Bauer K, Glover J, Wang L. Three options for citation tracking: Google scholar Scopus and Web of science. Biomed Digit Libr. 2006;3:7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Zyoud. 2016

Advertisement