alexa Bibliometric Analyisis of Blood Donor Studies in Saudi Arabia: Determining the Research Gaps | OMICS International
ISSN: 2155-9864
Journal of Blood Disorders & Transfusion

Like us on:

Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Bibliometric Analyisis of Blood Donor Studies in Saudi Arabia: Determining the Research Gaps

Farjah Algahtani*

Department of Haematology, King Khalid University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

*Corresponding Author:

Farjah Algahtani
Phd, Department of Haematology
King Khalid University
Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Tel: 09665050805919
E-mail: [email protected]

Received date: May 30, 2015 Accepted date: July 27, 2015 Published date: Aug 03, 2015

Citation: Algahtani F (2015) Bibliometric Analyisis of Blood Donor Studies in Saudi Arabia: Determining the Research Gaps. J Blood Disord Transfus 6:294. doi:10.4172/2155-9864.1000294

Copyright: © 2015 Algahtani F. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Blood Disorders & Transfusion

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Research pertaining to blood donors is ongoing in contributing to evidence-based practice to improve patient safety. This article evaluates publication trends in blood donor studies in Saudi Arabia benchmarked against the United Kingdom (UK), a global leader in transfusion practice and research, to identify research priorities for Saudi transfusion services.
Materials and Methods: An online retrospective analysis of publications relating to blood donor studies in Saudi Arabia and the UK, indexed by the Science Citation Index expanded database of Thomson Reuters Web of Science. Analysis was performed to compare the quality of research outputs, determine differences in research themes and identify research gaps.
Results: Comparative analysis of research outputs between the two countries highlighted variations in research interests and scientific impact. The UK produced more blood donor studies focusing on donor screening for emerging infectious diseases. Articles were mostly published in transfusion specific journals, resulting in greater visibility and more citations. Comparatively, Saudi blood donor studies tended to focus on donor screening for World Health Organization (WHO) recognized infectious agents, and were mainly published in local Saudi journals.
Conclusion: The greater ability of the UK to identify emerging threats to the blood supply is likely a result of the centralization of their transfusion services which has enabled enhanced epidemiological surveillance and collation of donor information and statistics. We advocate for establishing a centralized Saudi blood transfusion service to enable country-wide blood donor surveillance, trend analysis and to improve the services and research outputs of Saudi Arabia.

Keywords:

Saudi Arabia; Blood donor; Transfusion; Research

Introduction

The provision of a safe blood supply for clinical transfusion is an integral part of any healthcare system. Selective donor recruitment and donation screening are the most critical elements of the transfusion chain in safeguarding the blood supply against the transmission of life-threatening infections [1].

Saudi blood transfusion services (BTS) have made significant progress over the last few decades with currently 250 individual hospital blood banks supplied across the country [2].

Research pertaining to blood donors is on-going in contributing to evidence-based practice in establishing strategies to improve patient safety. However, the quality of its research outputs benchmarked against those of the developed world has not been previously investigated.

Bibliometric analysis of scientific productions enables evaluation of the quality of research outputs [3,4]. In particular, citation analysis provides a crude indicator for the scientific impact and quality of a publication [5]. This study evaluates Saudi publication trends in blood donor studies within the field of transfusion medicine relative to the United Kingdom (UK), a global leader in transfusion practice and research. Determining research gaps will support the identification of research priorities for Saudi transfusion services, to improve the quality of research outputs, and ultimately improve blood safety.

Materials and Methods

This study encompassed an online retrospective analysis of publications produced in Saudi Arabia relating to blood donors (in the context of Transfusion Medicine), and indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) expanded database of Thomson Reuters' Web of Science [6].

The study was conducted in January 2015, analyzing publication outputs between 1990 and 2012, allowing two subsequent years for citations of the latest articles. The following keywords were used to produce the dataset: “Saudi Arabia” or “UK” [address] AND “blood donor” or “blood donors” [title]. All articles were retrieved and the data refined to those relating to blood donors. References were rejected if blood donors were used as a control group in studies not linked to transfusion medicine. The final list of citations was reviewed to confirm they satisfied the inclusion criteria.

Results

The total number of UK blood donor publications indexed in the Web of Science between 1990 and 2012 was 133. Fifty one of these publications were excluded on initial screening, leaving a core set of 82 publications for analysis. Within this 22 year period of analysis, publications on blood donor studies was fairly consistent after 1992 (average n=4), with peak publications in 2011 (n=8) and 2005 (n=6) (Figure 1a).

blood-disorders-transfusion-Frequency-publications-produced

Figure 1: Frequency of publications produced on blood donor studies in the (a) UK and (b) Saudi Arabia between 1990 and 2012.

Articles were published across 36 journals, of which 26 (72%) were ISI indexed. The journal publishing the highest volume of UK blood donor studies was Vox Sanguinis (n=22; 27%), followed by Transfusion (n=9; 11%) and Transfusion medicine (n=8; 10%) (Table 1). The average impact factor of the top 5 publishing journals was 9.9.

Journal 2012 Impact Factor No. of blood donor publications   
Vox Sanguinis 2.847 22  
Transfusion 3.526 9    
Transfusion Medicine 1.259 8
Lancet 39.06 4
Journal of Viral Hepatitis   3.082 3      
Total 49.774 46 (56%)      
Average 9.9 9.2  

Table 1: Top 5 science journals publishing UK blood donor studies.

Comparative analysis of research outputs produced from Saudi Arabia yielded 61 publications that were reduced to a final 55 articles based on the exclusion criteria. Saudi publications over the 22 year period of analysis were less consistent in number, but experienced peak publications in 1991 (n=9) and 2004 (n=6) (Figure 1b).

Articles were published across 23 journals, of which 17 (74%) were ISI-indexed. Local Saudi journals Annals of Saudi Medicine (n=15; 27%) and Saudi Medical Journal (n=9; 16%) published the highest volume of articles, followed by Vox Sanguinis (n=5; 7%) (Table 2). The average impact factor of the top 5 publishing journals was 1.6.

Journal 2012 Impact Factor No. of blood donor  publications
Annals Of Saudi Medicine 1.103 15
Saudi Medical Journal 0.619 9
Vox Sanguinis 2.847 5
Transfusion 3.526 3
Journal of family and community medicine         NA 3
Total 8.095 35(63%)
Average 1.6 7        

Table 2: Top 5 journals publishing blood donor studies in Saudi Arabia.

Table 3 lists the Web of Science output analysis for blood donor studies produced in the UK and Saudi Arabia. The average number of citations for UK publications was 26.26 relative to 7.96 for Saudi Arabia. Additionally, a Hirsch Index (h-index) of 10 was produced for Saudi Arabia, compared with the significantly higher value of 22 for the UK. These parameters indicate a higher quality of publications from the UK.

Parameters UK KSA
Results found 82 55
Sum of the Times Cited 2153 438
Sum of Times Cited without self-citations 2126 383
Citing Articles 2007 324
Citing Articles without self-citations 1990 301
Average Citations per Item 26.26 7.96
h-index 22 10

Table 3: Comparative citation analysis of blood donor study research outputs of the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia between 1990 and 2012.

Publications mapped by research domain

Blood donor studies grouped under three main domains: (i) donor infectious disease screening (IDS), (ii) non-infectious disease screening (non-IDS), and (iii) donor recruitment, retention and behavior patterns (DRRB). IDS research was further subdivided into screening for ‘classical’ WHO-recognized transfusion transmissible agents and ‘non-classical’ emerging infectious agents. Classical WHO-recognized transfusion transmissible agents included Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Hepatitis B (HBV), Hepatitis C (HCV), Syphilis, Human T-lymphotropic virus(HTLV) I/II, West Nile virus (WNV), and malaria.

IDS accounted for the greatest number of publications in both countries. In the UK, 59(72%) publications covered IDS, of which 16(19%) analyzed emerging infectious diseases. Indeed 3 out of the top 5 cited UK publications were on the topic of emerging threats to blood safety [7-9]. A further 17(21%) articles reviewed non-IDS in blood donors, and a final 6(7%) articles covered topics of DRRB analysis (Figure 2). Comparatively, Saudi publications displayed a slightly different research profile. Forty nine (89%) publications reviewed IDS in blood donors, however, only 4(7%) of these publications analyzed emerging infectious diseases. The remaining 45(82%) publications were on WHO-recognized transfusion transmissible agents. Additionally, 3(5.5%) publications covered non-IDS screening topics, whilst the final 3(5.5%) publications analyzed DRRB (Figure 3).

blood-disorders-transfusion-DRRB-donor-recruitment

Figure 2: UK blood donor publications/research domain analysis. *IDS, donor infectious disease screening; non-IDS, non-infectious disease screening, and DRRB, donor recruitment, retention and behaviour.

blood-disorders-transfusion-infectious-disease-screening

Figure 3: Saudi blood donor publications/research domain analysis. *IDS, donor infectious disease screening; non-IDS, non-infectious disease screening, and DRRB, donor recruitment, retention and behaviour.

Discussion

Saudi Arabia has been producing publications on blood donor studies since the 1990s, with peak publications in 1991 (n=9). However, the volume of research output has not been consistent, with several years where no publications were produced. In comparison, the UK interest in blood donor studies increased after 1992, with an average four publications produced each year, and peak output in 2011 of eight articles (Figure 1). This need to improve the research production of Saudi Arabia has been noted by others [10]. However, its volume of publications and visibility in certain fields has ranked favourably among neighbouring Arab countries [10-11].

A limitation of the Web of Science database was the inability to search for terms in publication abstracts. This study was therefore limited to publications that mentioned blood donors in the title. Nevertheless, citation analysis of blood donor studies showed a marked difference between the two countries, with the average number of citations per article for the UK estimated at 26.26 relative to 7.96 for Saudi Arabia. These variations are likely the result of the visibility of publications to the research community, as well as topics of investigation. Journal analysis showed that Saudi publication production was mainly from local journals. The Annals of Saudi Medicine and the Saudi Medical Journal published 44% (n=24) of Saudi blood donor studies. UK publications, however, targeted subject-specific transfusion journals. This would likely influence the visibility of UK research activities to the transfusion community and favour greater article citation.

Publication analysis highlighted differences in research patterns between the two countries. Saudi Arabia’s research interests focused mainly on donor screening for known infectious agents. However, UK publications focused on donor screening for emerging infectious diseases. In any research field, such ‘hot topics’ would likely yield greater interest and subsequently more citations. Therefore, improving Saudi Arabia’s research initiatives requires a shift towards emerging threats to blood safety, with publications targeting transfusion journals for greater visibility.

It has been noted that UK transfusion services are coordinated centrally through one organization, the National Health Service Blood Transfusion Service (NHSBT), responsible for donor recruitment, donation screening, processing, storing and issuing of blood products. It is plausible to suggest that UK service centralization facilitated the determination of trends in emerging threats to blood safety. This information would be translated directly into improvements to laboratory donor screening algorithms, and revision of donor recruitment and management policies, raising the quality of the national blood supply and strengthening blood transfusion services. However, as blood transfusion services in Saudi Arabia are independent to each hospital, collating donor related information in the near future may present an initial barrier. Nevertheless, as a complete understanding of the national problem precedes intervention strategies, the country as a whole would benefit greatly from establishing a centralized blood service for communication and reporting. These are our recommendations for the future.

Conclusion

This article presents a bibliometric analysis of blood donor studies in Saudi Arabia and the UK. Comparative analysis of research outputs between the two countries highlighted variations in research interests and scientific impact. The UK produced more blood donor studies focusing on donor screening for emerging infectious diseases. Articles were mostly published in transfusion specific journals, resulting in greater visibility and more citations. Comparatively, Saudi blood donor studies tended to focus on donor screening for classical recognized infectious agents, and were mainly published in local Saudi journals. The greater ability of the UK to identify emerging threats to the blood supply is likely a result of the centralization of their transfusion service which has enabled collation of donor screening information. We advocate for establishing a centralized Saudi blood transfusion service to enable country-wide blood donor surveillance, trend analysis and improve the research outputs of Saudi publications.

References

  1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK142990/
  2. Abdel Gader AG, Osman AM, Al Gahtani FH, Farghali MN, Ramadan AH, et al. (2011) Attitude to blood donation in Saudi Arabia. Asian J Transfus Sci 5: 121-126.
  3. Bassecoulard E, Zitt M (1999) Indicators in a research institute: A multi-level classification of scientific journals. Scientometrics 44: 323-345.
  4. Durieux V, Gevenois PA (2010) Bibliometric indicators: quality measurements of scientific publication. Radiology 255: 342-351.
  5. Kostoff RN (1998) The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation. Scientometrics; 43: 27- 43.
  6. http://webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?PointOfEntry=Home&SID=4FeKpokbnHkLlmE1OGe
  7. Simmonds P, Davidson F, Lycett C, Prescott LE, MacDonald DM, et al. (1998) Detection of a novel DNA virus (TTV) in blood donors and blood products. Lancet 352: 191-195.
  8. Dalton HR, Stableforth W, Thurairajah P, Hazeldine S, Remnarace R, et al. (2008) Autochthonous hepatitis E in Southwest England: natural history, complications and seasonal variation, and hepatitis E virus IgG seroprevalence in blood donors, the elderly and patients with chronic liver disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 20: 784-790.
  9. Leong HN, Tuke PW, Tedder RS, Khanom AB, Eglin RP, et al. (2007) The prevalence of chromosomally integrated human herpesvirus 6 genomes in the blood of UK blood donors. J Med Virol 79: 45-51.
  10. Mowafi HA (2012) Bibliometric analysis of the volume and visibility of Saudi publications in leading anesthesia journals. Saudi J Anaesth 6: 393-397.
  11. Meo SA, Hassan A, Usmani AM (2013) Research progress and prospects of Saudi Arabia in global medical sciences. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 17: 3265-3271.
Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Recommended Conferences

Article Usage

  • Total views: 11896
  • [From(publication date):
    August-2015 - May 23, 2018]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 8113
  • PDF downloads : 3783

Review summary

  1. farjah Alqahtami
    Posted on Sep 18 2016 at 4:26 am
    Hi please the Universty name is written wrong ,it should be king Saud Universty and not King Khalid Universty
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2018-19
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri & Aquaculture Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Clinical Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Food & Nutrition Journals

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics & Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Materials Science Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Nursing & Health Care Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

Ann Jose

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

 
© 2008- 2018 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
Leave Your Message 24x7