Characteristics of bibliometric analyses of the complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine literature: A scoping review protocol

Background: There is a growing body of literature on complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM), which offers a holistic approach to health and the maintenance of social and cultural values. Bibliometric analyses are an increasingly commonly used method employing quantitative statistical techniques to understand trends in a particular scientific field. The objective of this scoping review is to investigate the quantity and characteristics of evidence in relation to bibliometric analyses of CAIM literature. Methods: The following bibliographic databases will be searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science. Studies published in English, conducting any type of bibliometric analysis involving any CAIM therapies, as detailed by an operational definition of CAIM adopted by Cochrane Complementary Medicine, will be included. Conference abstracts and study protocols will be excluded. The following variables will be extracted from included studies: title, author, year, country, study objective, type of CAIM, health condition targeted, databases searched in the bibliometric analysis, the type of bibliometric variables assessed, how bibliometric information was reported, main findings, conclusions, and limitations. Findings will be summarized narratively, as well as in tabular and graphical format. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this scoping review will be the first to investigate the characteristics of evidence in relation to bibliometric analyses on CAIM literature. The findings of this review may be useful to identify variations in the objectives, methods, and results of bibliometric analyses of CAIM research literature.

How to cite this publication

Jeremy Y. Ng, Henry Liu, Aimun Qadeer Shah, L. Susan Wieland, David Moher (2023). Characteristics of bibliometric analyses of the complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine literature: A scoping review protocol. , 12, DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.130326.2.

Related publications

Why join Raw Data Library?

Quality

Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.

Control

Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.

Free for Academia

Students and faculty get instant access after verification.

Publication Details

Type

Article

Year

2023

Authors

5

Datasets

0

Total Files

0

Language

en

DOI

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.130326.2

Join Research Community

Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.

Get Free Access

Frequently asked questions

Is access really free for academics and students?

Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.

How is my data protected?

Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.

Can I request additional materials?

Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.

Advance your research today

Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.

Get free academic access Learn more

✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaboration