Pain management nursing : official journal of the American Society of Pain Management Nurses · 2026
Bibliometric Mapping of Meta-Analyses in Surgical Pain Nursing: Trends and Conceptual Structure.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ataman Yildiz Gamze, Ilbey Koç Betül, Taylan Seçil, Eti Aslan Fatma
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to provide a bibliometric analysis of publication trends, scientific productivity characteristics, and the conceptual structure of meta-analyses on surgical pain from a nursing perspective.
DESIGN: This study was conducted using a bibliometric analysis design.
METHODS: The Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection database was used, and publications up to 18 November 2025 were included. Analyses were performed using the Biblioshiny interface within the Bibliometrix R package. Publication trends, journal and author productivity, country-based distributions, collaboration networks, and the conceptual structure were evaluated using Bradford's, Lotka's, Price's, and Zipf's laws, as well as Keywords Plus, Trend Topics, and conceptual network analyses.
RESULTS: Between 1999 and 2025, a total of 160 meta-analyses published from a nursing perspective in the field of surgical pain were identified across 93 different scientific sources. Publication output increased markedly after 2020, with an annual growth rate exceeding 10%. Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were the most productive journals, and Bradford's Law demonstrated that publications were concentrated around a limited number of core journals. Author analyses indicated that productivity was distributed across a broad group of researchers, and the results of Price's and Lotka's Laws did not yet point to a strong core author structure. Publication output and international collaboration networks were predominantly centered in the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. Keywords Plus and Trend Topics analyses showed that the literature clustered around the themes of management, surgery, pain, and quality of life, with modern pain management strategies and ERAS approaches becoming increasingly prominent in recent years. Zipf's analysis revealed a dynamic literature characterized by high conceptual diversity alongside a small number of dominant concepts.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the literature is largely concentrated on clinical practice and patient outcomes, while also highlighting areas open to further development, particularly regarding specific populations and multicenter studies.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This bibliometric overview maps the existing evidence base in surgical pain nursing and identifies prominent and emerging areas of research. The findings may help nurses and researchers recognize evolving evidence in pain management and ERAS-related care, identify underexplored areas, and guide future evidence synthesis and research priorities in surgical pain nursing.
DESIGN: This study was conducted using a bibliometric analysis design.
METHODS: The Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection database was used, and publications up to 18 November 2025 were included. Analyses were performed using the Biblioshiny interface within the Bibliometrix R package. Publication trends, journal and author productivity, country-based distributions, collaboration networks, and the conceptual structure were evaluated using Bradford's, Lotka's, Price's, and Zipf's laws, as well as Keywords Plus, Trend Topics, and conceptual network analyses.
RESULTS: Between 1999 and 2025, a total of 160 meta-analyses published from a nursing perspective in the field of surgical pain were identified across 93 different scientific sources. Publication output increased markedly after 2020, with an annual growth rate exceeding 10%. Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were the most productive journals, and Bradford's Law demonstrated that publications were concentrated around a limited number of core journals. Author analyses indicated that productivity was distributed across a broad group of researchers, and the results of Price's and Lotka's Laws did not yet point to a strong core author structure. Publication output and international collaboration networks were predominantly centered in the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. Keywords Plus and Trend Topics analyses showed that the literature clustered around the themes of management, surgery, pain, and quality of life, with modern pain management strategies and ERAS approaches becoming increasingly prominent in recent years. Zipf's analysis revealed a dynamic literature characterized by high conceptual diversity alongside a small number of dominant concepts.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the literature is largely concentrated on clinical practice and patient outcomes, while also highlighting areas open to further development, particularly regarding specific populations and multicenter studies.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This bibliometric overview maps the existing evidence base in surgical pain nursing and identifies prominent and emerging areas of research. The findings may help nurses and researchers recognize evolving evidence in pain management and ERAS-related care, identify underexplored areas, and guide future evidence synthesis and research priorities in surgical pain nursing.