Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a scientometric analysis of the global research activity and collaborative networks

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Surgery International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite a growing interest to clinicians and scientists, there is no comprehensive study that examines the global research activity on congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH). A search strategy for the Web of Science™ database was designed to identify scientific CDH publications. Research output of countries, institutions, individual authors, and collaborative networks was analyzed. Semi-qualitative research measures including citation rate and h-index were assessed. Choropleth mapping and network diagrams were employed to visualize results. A total of 3669 publications were found, originating from 76 countries. The largest number was published by the USA (n = 1250), the UK (n = 279), and Canada (n = 215). The USA combined the highest number of cooperation articles (n = 152), followed by Belgium (n = 115) and the Netherlands (n = 93). The most productive collaborative networks were established between UK/Belgium (n = 53), Belgium/Spain (n = 47), and UK/Spain (n = 34). Canadian publications received the highest average citation rate (22.8), whereas the USA had the highest country-specific h-index (72). Eighty-five (2.3%) articles were published by international multicenter consortiums and national research networks. The most productive institutions and authors were based in North America and Europe. Over the past decades, CDH research has increasingly become multidisciplinary and numerous innovative therapeutic strategies were introduced. CDH-related research has constantly been progressing, involving today many disciplines with main research endeavors concentrating in a few high-income countries. Recent advances in prenatal interventions and regenerative medicine therapy hold the promise of improving CDH outcome in the 21st century. International collaborations and translational research should be strengthened to allow further evolution in this field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Doyle NM, Lally KP (2004) The CDH Study Group and advances in the clinical care of the patient with congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Semin Perinatol 28:174–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Balayla J, Abenhaim HA (2014) Incidence, predictors and outcomes of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a population-based study of 32 million births in the United States. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 27:1438–1444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McGivern MR, Best KE, Rankin J, Wellesley D, Greenlees R, Addor MC et al (2015) Epidemiology of congenital diaphragmatic hernia in Europe: a register-based study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 100:F137–F144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Slovatinek AM (2014) The genetics of common disorders—congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Eur J Med Genet 57:418–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Keijzer R, Puri P (2010) Congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Semin Pediatr Surg 19:180–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tovar JA (2012) Congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Orphanet J Rare Dis 7:1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Ameis D, Khoshgoo N, Keijzer R (2017) Abnormal lung development in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Semin Pediatr Surg 26:123–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kotecha S, Barbato A, Bush A, Claus F, Davenport M, Delacourt C et al (2012) Congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Eur Respir J 39:820–829

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. van den Hout L, Reiss I, Felix JF, Hop WC, Lally PA, Lally KP et al (2010) Risk factors for chronic lung disease and mortality in newborns with congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Neonatology 98:370–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Losty PD (2014) Congenital diaphragmatic hernia: where and what is the evidence? Semin Pediatr Surg 23:278–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rocha G, Azevedo I, Pinto JC, Guimarães H (2012) Follow-up of the survivors of congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Early Hum Dev 88:255–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lally PA, Skarsgard ED (2017) Congenital diaphragmatic hernia: the role of multi-institutional collaboration and patient registries in supporting best practice. Semin Pediatr Surg 26:129–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Leydesdorff L, Milojević S (2015) Scientometrics. In: Wright JD (ed) International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences. Elsevier, New York, pp 322–327

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Mingers J, Leydesdorff L (2015) A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. Eur J Oper Res 246:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Groneberg-Kloft B, Fischer TC, Quarcoo D, Scutaru C (2009) New quality and quantity indices in science (NewQIS): the study protocol of an international project. J Occup Med Toxicol 4:16

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:16569–16572

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Groneberg-Kloft B, Scutaru C, Kreiter C, Kölzow S, Fischer A, Quarcoo D (2008) Institutional operating figures in basic and applied sciences: scientometric analysis of quantitative output benchmarking. Health Res Policy Syst 6:6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Braun T, Glänzel W, Grupp H (1995) The scientometric weight of 50 nations in 27 science areas, 1989–1993. Part II. Life sciences. Scientometrics 34:207–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Greene M (2007) The demise of the lone author. Nature 450:1165

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wagner CS, Jonkers K (2017) Open countries have strong science. Nature 550:32–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Adams J (2013) Collaborations: the fourth age of research. Nature 497:557–560

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Schöffel N, Gfroerer S, Rolle U, Bendels MH, Klingelhöfer D, Groneberg-Kloft B (2017) Hirschsprung disease: critical evaluation of the global research architecture employing scientometrics and density-equalizing mapping. Eur J Pediatr Surg 27:185–191

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fanelli D (2010) Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US States data. PLoS One 5:e10271

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Génova G, Astudillo H, Fraga A (2016) The scientometric bubble considered harmful. Sci Eng Ethics 22:227–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. CDH International (2018) A global initiative to stop congenital diaphragmatic hernia. https://cdhi.org. Accessed 8 July 2018

  26. Grivell RM, Andersen C, Dodd JM (2015) Prenatal interventions for congenital diaphragmatic hernia for improving outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:CD008925

    Google Scholar 

  27. Persico N, Fabietti I, Ciralli F, Gentilino V, D’Ambrosi F, Boito S et al (2017) Fetoscopic endoluminal tracheal occlusion in fetuses with severe diaphragmatic hernia: a three-year single-center experience. Fetal Diagn Ther 41:215–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Belfort MA, Olutoye OO, Cass DL, Olutoye OA, Cassady CI, Mehollin-Ray AR et al (2017) Feasibility and outcomes of fetoscopic tracheal occlusion for severe left diaphragmatic hernia. Obstet Gynecol 129:20–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ruano R, Yoshisaki CT, da Silva MM, Ceccon ME, Grasi MS, Tannuri U et al (2012) A randomized controlled trial of fetal endoscopic tracheal occlusion versus postnatal management of severe isolated congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 39:20–27

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Dekoninck P, Gratacos E, Van Mieghem T, Richter J, Lewi P, Ancel AM et al (2011) Results of fetal endoscopic tracheal occlusion for congenital diaphragmatic hernia and the set up of the randomized controlled TOTAL trial. Early Hum Dev 87:619–624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Harrison MR, Keller RL, Hawgood SB, Kitterman JA, Sandberg PL, Farmer DL et al (2003) A randomized trial of fetal endoscopic tracheal occlusion for severe fetal congenital diaphragmatic hernia. N Engl J Med 349:1916–1924

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Araujo Júnior E, Tonni G, Martins WP, Ruano R (2017) Procedure-related complications and survival following fetoscopic endotracheal occlusion (FETO) for severe congenital diaphragmatic hernia: systematic review and meta-analysis in the FETO era. Eur J Pediatr Surg 27:297–305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Al-Maary J, Eastwood MP, Russo FM, Deprest JA, Keijzer R (2016) Fetal tracheal occlusion for severe pulmonary hypoplasia in isolated congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of survival. Ann Surg 264:929–933

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Deprest J, Gucciardo L, Eastwood P, Zia S, Jimenez J, Russo F et al (2014) Medical and regenerative solutions for congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a perinatal perspective. Eur J Pediatr Surg 24:270–277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Deprest J, Brady P, Nicolaides K, Benachi A, Berg C, Vermeesch J et al (2014) Prenatal management of the fetus with isolated congenital diaphragmatic hernia in the era of the TOTAL trial. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 19:338–348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Benachi A, Cordier AG, Cannie M, Jani J (2014) Advances in prenatal diagnosis of congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 19:331–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Senat MV, Bouchghoul H, Stirnemann J, Vaast P, Boubnova J, Begue L et al (2018) Prognosis of isolated congenital diaphragmatic hernia using lung-to-head circumference ratio: variability across centers in a national perinatal network. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 51:208–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Snoek KG, Peters NCJ, van Rosmalen J, van Heijst AFJ, Eggink AJ, Sikkel E et al (2017) The validity of the observed-to-expected lung-to-head ratio in congenital diaphragmatic hernia in an era of standardized neonatal treatment; a multicenter study. Prenat Diagn 37:658–665

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Russo FM, Eastwood MP, Keijzer R, Al-Maary J, Toelen J, Van Mieghem T et al (2017) Lung size and liver herniation predict need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation but not pulmonary hypertension in isolated congenital diaphragmatic hernia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 49:704–713

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Kastenholz KE, Weis M, Hagelstein C, Weiss C, Kehl S, Schaible T et al (2016) Correlation of observed-to-expected MRI fetal lung volume and ultrasound lung-to-head ratio at different gestational times in fetuses with congenital diaphragmatic hernia. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:856–866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Bouchghoul H, Senat MV, Storme L, de Lagausie P, Begue L, Khen-Dunlop N et al (2015) Congenital diaphragmatic hernia: does gestational age at diagnosis matter when evaluating morbidity and mortality? Am J Obstet Gynecol 213:535.e1–535.e7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Morini F, Lally KP, Lally PA, Crisafulli RM, Capolupo I, Bagolan P (2017) Treatment strategies for congenital diaphragmatic hernia: change sometimes comes bearing gifts. Front Pediatr 5:195

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Harting MT, Lally KP (2014) The congenital diaphragmatic hernia study group registry update. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 19:370–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Donahoe PK, Longoni M, High FA (2016) Polygenic causes of congenital diaphragmatic hernia produce common lung pathologies. Am J Pathol 186:2532–2543

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Stege G, Fenton A, Jaffray B (2003) Nihilism in the 1990s: the true mortality of congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Pediatrics 112:532–535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Mah VK, Zamakhshary M, Mah DY, Cameron B, Bass J, Bohn D et al (2009) Absolute vs relative improvements in congenital diaphragmatic hernia survival: what happened to “hidden mortality”. J Pediatr Surg 44:877–882

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Putnam LR, Harting MT, Tsao K, Morini F, Yoder BA, Luco M et al (2016) Congenital diaphragmatic hernia defect size and infant morbidity at discharge. Pediatrics 138:e20162043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hollinger LE, Harting MT, Lally KP (2017) Long-term follow-up of congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Semin Pediatr Surg 26:178–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Morini F, Valfrè L, Bagolan P (2017) Long-term morbidity of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a plea for standardization. Semin Pediatr Surg 26:301–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Tracy S, Chen C (2014) Multidisciplinary long-term follow-up of congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a growing trend. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 19:385–391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. World Health Organization (2018) Hinari access to research for Health Programme. http://www.who.int/hinari/en. Accessed 8 July 2018

  52. Research4Life (2018) Access to research in the developing world. http://www.research4life.org. Accessed 8 July 2018

  53. Van Leeuwen TN, Moed HF, Tijssen RJW, Visser MS, Van Raan AFJ (2001) Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics 51:335–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Campbell FM (1990) National bias: a comparison of citation practices by health professionals. Bull Med Libr Assoc 78:376–382

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Link AM (1998) US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 280:246–247

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Garfield E (2001) Impact factors, and why they won’t go away. Nature 411:522

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Bartneck C, Kokkelmans S (2011) Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics 87:85–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Egghe L (2006) Theory and practice of the g-index. Scientometrics 69:131–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Merton RK (1968) The Matthew effect in science. Science 159:56–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No external funding was received by any of the authors in support of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatric Surgery, Hospital for Children and Adolescents, University of Helsinki, Stenbäckinkatu 11, P.O. Box 281, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland

    Florian Friedmacher, Mikko P. Pakarinen & Risto J. Rintala

Authors
  1. Florian Friedmacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mikko P. Pakarinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Risto J. Rintala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florian Friedmacher.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, informed consent was not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Friedmacher, F., Pakarinen, M.P. & Rintala, R.J. Congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a scientometric analysis of the global research activity and collaborative networks. Pediatr Surg Int 34, 907–917 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-018-4304-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-018-4304-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation