Gabriel Natan Pires1,2, Alyne Niyama1, Monica Levy Andersen2, Sergio Tufik2. 1. Department of Physiological Sciences, Santa Casa de São Paulo School of Medical Sciences, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Departamento de Psicobiologia, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Sleep research has grown substantially in recent decades, producing a large amount of data and an increasing number of meta-analyses. This study sought to establish the volume of meta-analyses in this area and assess how this level of material has developed over time. METHODS: A bibliographic search of the Web of Science database was conducted (1945-2019). The total number of articles and the total number of meta-analyses were extracted for both sleep medicine and a combination of 6 other medical specialties (cardiology, neurology, psychiatry, pulmonology, otorhinolaryngology, and pediatrics). RESULTS: A total of 262,384 articles and 1,152 meta-analyses related to sleep medicine were identified. Considering the whole period under analysis, meta-analyses represented 0.44% of the total number of sleep medicine-related articles. Throughout this period, the proportion of meta-analyses published has been increasing in both sleep medicine and the other fields, but it is greater in the other fields. In 2019, meta-analyses in sleep medicine represented 1.10% of the publication output in this area but represented 1.62% of the other areas. However, sleep medicine's growth rate has been consistently higher than in the other fields. The United States, China, and the United Kingdom have been the top meta-analysis producers. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses in sleep medicine are underused. As a recent medical field, sleep medicine has more potential to grow and is likely to grow faster than other fields. Researchers should be encouraged to perform and publish meta-analyses on sleep medicine, as long as the analyses are reasonable and feasible from methodological, statistical. and practical perspectives.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Sleep research has grown substantially in recent decades, producing a large amount of data and an increasing number of meta-analyses. This study sought to establish the volume of meta-analyses in this area and assess how this level of material has developed over time. METHODS: A bibliographic search of the Web of Science database was conducted (1945-2019). The total number of articles and the total number of meta-analyses were extracted for both sleep medicine and a combination of 6 other medical specialties (cardiology, neurology, psychiatry, pulmonology, otorhinolaryngology, and pediatrics). RESULTS: A total of 262,384 articles and 1,152 meta-analyses related to sleep medicine were identified. Considering the whole period under analysis, meta-analyses represented 0.44% of the total number of sleep medicine-related articles. Throughout this period, the proportion of meta-analyses published has been increasing in both sleep medicine and the other fields, but it is greater in the other fields. In 2019, meta-analyses in sleep medicine represented 1.10% of the publication output in this area but represented 1.62% of the other areas. However, sleep medicine's growth rate has been consistently higher than in the other fields. The United States, China, and the United Kingdom have been the top meta-analysis producers. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses in sleep medicine are underused. As a recent medical field, sleep medicine has more potential to grow and is likely to grow faster than other fields. Researchers should be encouraged to perform and publish meta-analyses on sleep medicine, as long as the analyses are reasonable and feasible from methodological, statistical. and practical perspectives.
Authors: Heather L Colquhoun; Danielle Levac; Kelly K O'Brien; Sharon Straus; Andrea C Tricco; Laure Perrier; Monika Kastner; David Moher Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Charles Huamaní; Jorge Rey de Castro; Gregorio González-Alcaide; Daniel Ninello Polesel; Sergio Tufik; Monica Levy Andersen Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: David Moher; Larissa Shamseer; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2015-01-01