4.4 Article

A bibliometric analysis of acupuncture research in Taiwan from 1988 to 2017

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE CHINESE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Volume 82, Issue 5, Pages 428-435

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000093

Keywords

Acupuncture; Bibliometric method; H-index; Traditional Chinese medicine; Web of Science

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Since Taiwan's national health insurance system provides residents with easy and affordable access to clinical acupuncture treatment, this study sought to analyze trends in the publication of acupuncture-related research in Taiwan from 1988 to 2017, using a bibliometric method. Methods: Data on the scholarly literature from 1988 to 2017 were retrieved through Web of Science searches for the keywords acupunct*, acupoint*, electroacupunct*, electro-acupunct*, acupre*, auricular acupunc*, and auricular needle* in study titles. Results: A total of 539 acupuncture-related articles published from 1988 to 2017 were identified and analyzed. The articles had an h-index of 38 and were cited in subsequent studies 7250 times, meaning that Taiwan ranked sixth in the production of such publications among countries/regions globally. Among those articles, 99 (18.4%) had no subsequent citations, six (1.1%) were highly cited (over 100 citations), and 141 (26.1%) were cited 4 to 10 times. The highly cited articles discussed the possible pathways of acupuncture stimulation and efficacy, and received 1103 (15.2%) of the citations. Conclusion: The China Medical University in Taichung, Taiwan, was the most active educational institution in Taiwan in terms of acupuncture-related research. Professor Lin Jaung-Geng was the leading acupuncture-related researcher, having the most publications, citations, and the highest h-index value. These results provided a context for analyzing the strengths of the existing research and informing prospective strategies for further studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available