Global Myeloma Research Clusters, Output, and Citations: A Bibliometric Mapping and Clustering Analysis

Background International collaborative research is a mechanism for improving the development of disease-specific therapies and for improving health at the population level. However, limited data are available to assess the trends in research output related to orphan diseases. Methods and Findings We used bibliometric mapping and clustering methods to illustrate the level of fragmentation in myeloma research and the development of collaborative efforts. Publication data from Thomson Reuters Web of Science were retrieved for 2005–2009 and followed until 2013. We created a database of multiple myeloma publications, and we analysed impact and co-authorship density to identify scientific collaborations, developments, and international key players over time. The global annual publication volume for studies on multiple myeloma increased from 1,144 in 2005 to 1,628 in 2009, which represents a 43% increase. This increase is high compared to the 24% and 14% increases observed for lymphoma and leukaemia. The major proportion (>90% of publications) was from the US and EU over the study period. The output and impact in terms of citations, identified several successful groups with a large number of intra-cluster collaborations in the US and EU. The US-based myeloma clusters clearly stand out as the most productive and highly cited, and the European Myeloma Network members exhibited a doubling of collaborative publications from 2005 to 2009, still increasing up to 2013. Conclusion and Perspective Multiple myeloma research output has increased substantially in the past decade. The fragmented European myeloma research activities based on national or regional groups are progressing, but they require a broad range of targeted research investments to improve multiple myeloma health care.

[1]  Per O. Seglen,et al.  The Skewness of Science , 1992, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[2]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences , 2002, J. Inf. Sci..

[3]  W. Glänzel,et al.  Analysing Scientific Networks Through Co-Authorship , 2004 .

[4]  Cheng Li,et al.  Two supervised learning approaches for name disambiguation in author citations , 2004, Proceedings of the 2004 Joint ACM/IEEE Conference on Digital Libraries, 2004..

[5]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  Structuring scientific activities by co-author analysis , 2005, Scientometrics.

[6]  Hui Han,et al.  Name disambiguation in author citations using a K-way spectral clustering method , 2005, Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL '05).

[7]  Eugene Garfield,et al.  Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? , 2005, Scientometrics.

[8]  European Myeloma Network: The Value of Collaborative Research , 2005, Acta Haematologica.

[9]  Vladimir Batagelj,et al.  Pajek Program for Analysis and Visualization of Large Networks , 2007 .

[10]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , 2008, 0803.0476.

[11]  Marina Ruggeri,et al.  Report of the European Myeloma Network on multiparametric flow cytometry in multiple myeloma and related disorders , 2008, Haematologica.

[12]  S. A. Morris Maping Research Specialities. , 2008 .

[13]  M. Dimopoulos,et al.  The use of bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma: recommendations of an expert panel on behalf of the European Myeloma Network. , 2009, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[14]  A new co-operative group: the European Myeloma Network Trialist Group , 2009, Leukemia & lymphoma.

[15]  M. Bøgsted,et al.  Multiparametric flow cytometry profiling of neoplastic plasma cells in multiple myeloma , 2010, Cytometry. Part B, Clinical cytometry.

[16]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Normalization at the field level: fractional counting of citations , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[17]  G. Morgan,et al.  European Myeloma Network: the 3rd Trialist Forum Consensus Statement from the European experts meeting on multiple myeloma , 2010, Leukemia & lymphoma.

[18]  H. Einsele,et al.  Consensus statement from European experts on the diagnosis, management, and treatment of multiple myeloma: from standard therapy to novel approaches , 2010, Leukemia & lymphoma.

[19]  U. Mellqvist,et al.  Optimizing the use of lenalidomide in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: consensus statement , 2011, Leukemia.

[20]  P. Fayers,et al.  Thalidomide for previously untreated elderly patients with multiple myeloma: meta-analysis of 1685 individual patient data from 6 randomized clinical trials. , 2011, Blood.

[21]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[22]  G. Morgan,et al.  Personalized therapy in multiple myeloma according to patient age and vulnerability: a report of the European Myeloma Network (EMN). , 2011, Blood.

[23]  P. Sonneveld,et al.  Report from the European Myeloma Network on interphase FISH in multiple myeloma and related disorders , 2012, Haematologica.

[24]  H. Goldschmidt,et al.  MyelomA Genetics International Consortium , 2012, Leukemia & lymphoma.

[25]  Dag W. Aksnes,et al.  Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[26]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[27]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[28]  Sanya Carley,et al.  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act , 2014 .

[29]  Wanli Liu,et al.  Author Name Disambiguation for PubMed , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..