OBJECTIVE： To identify global research trends in the use of nerve conduits for peripheral nerve injury repair. DATA RETRIEVAL： Numerous basic and clinical studies on nerve conduits for peripheral nerve injury repair...OBJECTIVE： To identify global research trends in the use of nerve conduits for peripheral nerve injury repair. DATA RETRIEVAL： Numerous basic and clinical studies on nerve conduits for peripheral nerve injury repair were performed between 2002-2011. We performed a bibliometric analysis of the institutions, authors, and hot topics in the field, from the Web of Science, using the key words peripheral nerve and conduit or tube. SELECTION CRITERIA： Inclusion criteria： peer-reviewed published articles on nerve conduits for peripheral nerve injury repair, indexed in the Web of Science; original research articles, reviews, meeting abstracts, proceedings papers, book chapters, editorial material, and news items. Exclusion criteria： articles requiring manual searching or telephone access; documents not published in the public domain; and several corrected papers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES： （a） Annual publication output; （b） publication type; （c） publication by research field; （d） publication by journal; （e） publication by funding agency; （f） publication by author; （g） publication by country and institution; （h） publications by institution in China; （i） most-cited papers. RESULTS： A total of 793 publications on the use of nerve conduits for peripheral nerve injury repair were retrieved from the Web of Science between 2002-2011. The number of publications gradually increased over the 10-year study period. Articles constituted the main type of publication. The most prolific journals were Biomaterials, Microsurge and Joumal of Biomedical Materials Research PartA. The National Natural Science Foundation of China supported 27 papers, more than any other funding agency. Of the 793 publications, almost half came from American and Chinese authors and institutions. CONCLUSION： Nerve conduits have been studied extensively for peripheral nerve regeneration; however, many problems remain in this field, which are difficult for researchers to reach a consensus.展开更多
文摘OBJECTIVE： To identify global research trends in the use of nerve conduits for peripheral nerve injury repair. DATA RETRIEVAL： Numerous basic and clinical studies on nerve conduits for peripheral nerve injury repair were performed between 2002-2011. We performed a bibliometric analysis of the institutions, authors, and hot topics in the field, from the Web of Science, using the key words peripheral nerve and conduit or tube. SELECTION CRITERIA： Inclusion criteria： peer-reviewed published articles on nerve conduits for peripheral nerve injury repair, indexed in the Web of Science; original research articles, reviews, meeting abstracts, proceedings papers, book chapters, editorial material, and news items. Exclusion criteria： articles requiring manual searching or telephone access; documents not published in the public domain; and several corrected papers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES： （a） Annual publication output; （b） publication type; （c） publication by research field; （d） publication by journal; （e） publication by funding agency; （f） publication by author; （g） publication by country and institution; （h） publications by institution in China; （i） most-cited papers. RESULTS： A total of 793 publications on the use of nerve conduits for peripheral nerve injury repair were retrieved from the Web of Science between 2002-2011. The number of publications gradually increased over the 10-year study period. Articles constituted the main type of publication. The most prolific journals were Biomaterials, Microsurge and Joumal of Biomedical Materials Research PartA. The National Natural Science Foundation of China supported 27 papers, more than any other funding agency. Of the 793 publications, almost half came from American and Chinese authors and institutions. CONCLUSION： Nerve conduits have been studied extensively for peripheral nerve regeneration; however, many problems remain in this field, which are difficult for researchers to reach a consensus.
