The tremendous increase in publications in Microfinance since 2000 has highlighted need for and importance of innovative techniques to present big data in this field in a most informative, scientific, and summarized manner. The study highlights the trends and patterns of Microfinance literature by revealing what has been done and what could be done in future. The study comprises of 1429 microfinance publications extracted from the Scopus database. The authors adopt bibliometric analysis through open software application R and network analysis techniques using Gephi AND VOS viewer software. The study adds a valuable contribution to the field of Microfinance by distinctively summarizing the important literature. It identifies global academic research trends and provides insights about trending topics, highly cited literature, authors, countries, collaboration network, word cloud, citation analysis, etc. Finally based on extensive literature survey through bibliometric analysis. The study highlights about the scope of future research in Microfinance.

Dissemination-implementation.org outlines 110 theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs): we conducted a citation analysis on 83 TMFs, searching Web of Science and PubMed databases.
Search terms were broad and included \"aging,\" \"older,\" \"elderly,\" and \"geriatric.\" We extracted each TMF in identified articles from inception through January 28, 2022. Included articles must have used a TMF in research or quality improvement work directly linked to older adults within the United States.
We reviewed 2,681 articles of which 295 articles cited at least one of 56 TMFs. Five TMFs represented 50% of the citations: Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance 1.0, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, Greenhalgh Diffusion of Innovation in Service Organizations, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative, Community-Based Participatory Research, and Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services. TMF application varied and there was a steady increase in TMF citations over time, with a 2- to 3-fold increase in citations in 2020-2021. We identified that only 41% of TMF use was meaningful.
Our results suggest TMF utilization is increasing in aging research, but there is a need to more meaningful utilize TMFs. As the population of older adults continues to grow, there will be increasing demand for effective evidence-based practices and models of care to be quickly and effectively translated into routine care. Use of TMFs is critical to building such evidence and to identifying and evaluating methods to support this translation.

This systematic review aimed to identify the characteristics and application of citation analyses in evaluating the justification, design, and placement of the research results of clinical health studies in the context of earlier similar studies.
We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and the Cochrane Methodology Register for meta-research studies. We included meta-research studies assessing whether researchers used earlier similar studies and/or systematic reviews of such studies to inform the justification or design of a new study, whether researchers used systematic reviews to inform the interpretation of new results, and meta-research studies assessing whether redundant studies were published within a specific area. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis.
A total of 27 studies were included. How authors of citation analyses define their outcomes appears rather arbitrary, as does how the reference of a landmark review or adherence to reporting guidelines was expected to contribute to the initiation, justification, design, or contextualization of relevant clinical trials.
Continued and improved efforts to promote evidence-based research are needed, including clearly defined and justified outcomes in meta-research studies to monitor the implementation of an evidence-based approach.

Online and virtual teaching-learning has been a panacea that most educational institutions adopted from the dire need created by COVID-19. We provide a comprehensive bibliometric study of 9523 publications on virtual laboratories in higher education covering the years 1991 to 2021. Influential bibliometrics such as publications and citations, productive countries, contributing institutions, funders, journals, authors, and bibliographic couplings were studied using the Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic Literature Reviews (SPAR-4-SLR) protocol. A new metric to complement citations called Field Weighted Citation Impact was introduced that considers the differences in research behavior across disciplines. Findings show that 72% of the research work was published between 2011-and 2021, most likely due to digitalization, with the highest number of publications in 2020-2021 highlighting the impact of the pandemic. Top contributing institutions were from the developed economies of Spain, Germany, and the United States. The citation impact from publications with international co-authors is the highest, highlighting the importance of co-authoring papers with different countries. For the first time, Altmetrics in the context of virtual labs were studied though a very low correlation was observed between citations and Altmetrics Attention Score. Still, the overall percentage of publications with attention showed linear growth. Our work also highlights that virtual laboratory could play a significant role in achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, specifically SDG4-Quality Education, which largely remains under-addressed.

BACKGROUND: Tivozanib (Fotivda) is an anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor that was denied access to the US market by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In contrast, it was granted approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma in adults. Given the conflicting decisions from these regulatory agencies, the objectives of the following study are (i) to critically review the evidence supporting the approval of tivozanib; (ii) to analyse the dissemination of this evidence in the literature by way of a citation analysis.
METHODS: Pivotal trials were searched by two independent reviewers using Medline, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and the European Public Assessment Report. The risk of bias for each trial was then inductively assessed. Articles citing any of these trials were identified using Web of Sciences. Finally, the quality of the citations was evaluated by two independent reviewers according to standard data extraction methods.
RESULTS: The search for primary evidence identified two pivotal studies: TIVO-1 upon which the FDA and the EMA decisions were based, and TIVO-3 which was conducted after the agencies\' decisions had been issued. The TIVO-1 trial presented several limitations that compromised causal inference, in relation to (i) design (absence of blinding, inappropriate comparator, and one-way crossover), (ii) poor internal consistency in the results for the primary endpoint, (iii) a discrepancy between a benefit observed for progression-free survival (HR: 0.80, 95% CI [0.64-0.99]) and the absence of difference for overall survival (HR: 1.25, 95% CI [0.95 - 1.62]). Our citation search protocol identified 229 articles that cited TIVO-1 in the 7 years following its publication, among which 151 (65.9%) citing articles discussing efficacy. Presence of spin was identified in 64 (42.4%) of these 151 citing articles, and 39 (25.8%) additional articles citing results without providing enough elements to interpret the TIVO-1 results.
CONCLUSIONS: EMA\'s approval was based on a single pivotal trial presenting critical limitations, rendering the results from the trial potentially inconclusive. The broad dissemination of TIVO-1 results in the scientific literature may have been affected by spin or results were presented in an inadequate critical manner.

Peer-review of manuscripts submitted to scholarly journals for publication dates back ~ 350 years and this process represents the foundation of scientific publishing. After a manuscript has undergone and survived a rigorous peer-review, this conveys a stamp of approval, because it signifies the work has been checked by independent experts in the scientific discipline concerned. The publication and citation track records of people instructed to appear as expert witness in civil and criminal litigation are important considerations. Using a publically available database, the most highly cited scientists in the discipline legal and forensic medicine were identified. For each scientist, a composite score was calculated based on six different citation metrics; (i) Total number of citations, (ii) H-index, (iii) Hm-index, which modifies the H-index for multi-authored papers, (iv) Citations to single-author papers, (v) Citations to single and first author papers and (vi) citations to single, first and last author papers. The top 100,000 most highly cited scientists from all disciplines were identified along with the top 2% of the most highly cited in each of 176 sub-fields. The latest version of the citation databases, up to the end of 2020, classified 14.163 people as having legal and forensic medicine as their primary research discipline. Of these, there were 29 names listed among the top 100,000 most highly cited in all disciplines and 299 were among the top cited 2% in their particular sub-field. More than 50% of the highly cited forensic practitioners resided in four countries (USA, Germany, UK and Australia). The top-ten most highly cited individuals were the same in all four versions of the database (2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020) and represented the sub-disciplines of toxicology (n = 3), genetics/DNA/heredity (n = 3), whereas two specialized in pathology/toxicology and two in pathology/genetics.

UNASSIGNED: Spine-related research continues to evolve rapidly and in the paradigm of increasing data, evidence-based practice becomes imperative. Citation-based rankings are thus critical in allowing clinicians to quickly ascertain the importance and value of a study. The purpose of this article is to report on the 10 most cited articles in the field of spine surgery over the last 10 years to provide an insight into the direction of research and clinical endeavors.
UNASSIGNED: Google Scholar was searched (1st April 2021) using an algorithm that sorts all cited spine surgery publications based on the number of citations per year. The top 10 most cited articles were identified. Information including journal, publication title, published year, subspecialty, and purpose of the study were compiled.
UNASSIGNED: The top 10 publications ranged from 471 to 66 citations, with yearly citations ranging from 67 to 14. Eight articles directly related to lumbar fusion, 2 related to 3D Printing in spinal surgery, and one article on robotic surgery. There were 4 retrospective studies, 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT), and 2 systematic reviews. 3 of the papers related to decision making in surgery, 4 on outcomes of surgery, and 3 on innovations in surgery. The journal that appeared most frequently in the top 10 list was the Journal of Spine Surgery.
UNASSIGNED: Novel surgical approaches or management strategies are almost always a manifestation of advancements in clinical and basic science research. Algorithm-based identification of highly cited articles provides an effective and prompt avenue for evidence-based medicine. Our ranking found a predominance of publications related to lumbar spinal fusion. Several articles in the top 10 provide an in-depth discussion on novel surgical techniques and technologies that define the current epoch of innovations in spine surgery.

UNASSIGNED: Keloids remain troublesome for clinicians because of the lack of standard therapy, and the underlying mechanisms are still unclear. Bibliometric analysis could be a powerful tool to comprehensively review research trends, evaluate publication performances and provide future perspectives. There is no bibliometric analysis focusing on keloid research.
UNASSIGNED: Keloid related publications were searched in Web of Science Core Collection from the publication year 1990 to 2019. Bibliometric data were provided on document type, annual publication number, most productive journals, publication geography, top potential authors, and highly cited articles. The distribution of single words in article titles was analyzed to evaluate the main research focuses and determine their development trends. Word cluster analysis was further performed to detect emerging trends in keloid research.
UNASSIGNED: The number of annual articles increased from 24 in 1990 to 63 in 2006 and then increased sharply, reaching 139 in 2019. Dermatologic Surgery published the highest number of articles followed by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. The USA ranked top with six publication indicators and China had a dramatic increase in the annual number of articles since 2012. Recent research hotspots include underlying pathogenetic mechanisms, keloid treatment, and therapeutic effect evaluation.
UNASSIGNED: Keloids remain a research focus. Efforts will be continuously made to understand the underlying mechanism of keloid formation. Despite many treatment modalities, there is no gold standard for keloid treatment, and many efforts are being made in the exploration of new therapies. Moreover, it is foreseeable that objective measurement tools will have a higher status in the assessment of keloids and scars.

This bibliometric review aimed to identify and analyze the top 100 most-cited publications on the systemic manifestations of periodontal disease (PD). A literature search was performed using the Web of Science (WoS) \'All Databases\', without any restriction of language, publication year, or study design. Of 4418 articles, the top 100 were included based on their citation count. After downloading the full texts, their bibliometric information was extracted and analyzed. The citation counts for the top 100 articles ranged from 156 to 4191 (median 217). The most productive years were 2003 and 2005, with 20 articles on the list. Majority of the articles were published in the Journal of Periodontology (n = 25). The top 100 articles were generated primarily from the USA (n = 61). Most of the publications were clinical trials (n = 27) and focused on the cardiovascular manifestations of PD (n = 31). Most of the articles were within the evidence level V (n = 41). A total of 58 studies received funding and the most frequently used keyword in the top articles was \"periodontal disease\" (n = 39). The current citation analysis presents insights into the current trends in the systemic manifestations of periodontal disease.

The lateral lumbar interbody fusion technique for lumbar arthrodesis is gaining popularity and being added as an option to traditional posterior and anterior approaches. In light of this, we analyzed the literature to identify the 25 most cited articles regarding lateral lumbar interbody fusion. The Thomson Reuters Web of Science was systematically searched to identify papers pertaining to lateral lumbar interbody fusion. The results were sorted in order to identify the top cited 25 articles. Statistical analysis was applied to determine metrics of interest, and observational studies were further classified. A search of all databases in the Thomson Reuters Web of Science identified 379 articles pertaining to lateral lumbar interbody fusion, with a total of 3800 citations. Of the 25 most cited articles, all were case series, reporting on a total of 2981 patients. These 25 articles were cited 2232 times in the literature and total citations per article ranged from 29 to 433. The oldest article was published in 2006, whereas the most recent article was published in 2015. The most cited article, by Ozgar et al., was cited 433 times, and the journal Spine published 7 of the 25 most cited articles. Herein, we report and analyze the 25 most cited articles on lateral lumbar interbody fusion, which include 25 cases series reporting a variety of data on a total of 2513 patients. Such data might assist in the design and interpretation of future studies pertaining to this topic.