Research trends in the field of the gut-brain interaction: Functional dyspepsia in the spotlight – An integrated bibliometric and science mapping approach

Abstract

ObjectivesThis study aims to perform a bibliometric analysis of functional dyspepsia (FD), which includes visualizing bibliographic information, in order to identify prevailing study themes, topics of interest, contributing journals, countries, institutions, and authors as well as co-citation patterns.MethodsThe Web of Science™ Core Collection Database was used to retrieve all peer-reviewed scientific publications related to FD research. The validated search terms were entered into the “title” and “author keywords” fields, and the results were sorted by publication year from 2006 to 2022. There were no restrictions on language. On 12 February 2023, a manual export of the complete metadata for each original publication and review article was performed. CiteSpace was used to reveal co-authorship, publication, and co-citation patterns to find prominent authors, organizations, countries, and journals in FD research as well as to identify author keywords with strong citation bursts, which could indicate an emerging research area. VOSviewer was used to build the co-occurrence indicator (co-word) to identify the main author keywords on which previous studies focused and to induce clustered scientific landscape for two consecutive periods to identify intriguing areas for future research.ResultsA search of the database retrieved 2,957 documents. There was a wave-like pattern in the number of publications until 2017, after which there was a spike in publication volume. The USA, China, and Japan provided the majority of contributions. In terms of institution, Mayo Clin, Univ Newcastle, and Katholieke Univ Leuven were found to be the prolific institutions. Additionally, the results indicate that eastern Asian researchers contributed significantly to the global knowledge of literature that led other countries; however, Canada, the USA, Australia, England, and Germany were found to have the highest degree of betweenness centrality. Nicholas J. Talley, Jan Tack, Gerald Holtmann, Michael Camilleri, Ken Haruma, and Paul Moayyedi occupied the top positions based on productivity and centrality indicators. Six thematic clusters emerged (Helicobacter pylori infection; pathophysiological mechanisms of FD; extraintestinal co-morbidities and overlap syndromes associated with FD; herbal medicine in FD; diabetic gastroparesis; and dietary factors in FD). “Acupuncture,” “duodenal eosinophilia,” “gut microbiota,” and others were among the author keywords with rising prevalence.ConclusionIn FD research, eastern Asian countries have established themselves as major contributors with the highest publishing productivity; however, research has primarily been driven by North America, Europe, and Australia, where cooperation is generally more active and highly influential scientific results are produced. Our analysis suggests that increased investments, training of human resources, improved infrastructures, and expanded collaborations are essential to improving the quality of FD research in Asia. The emerging author keyword analysis suggests that eosinophil-mast cell axis, gut microbiota, mental disorders, and acupuncture are the key areas that attract researchers’ attention as future research boulevards. There is a highly skewed distribution of research output across Asia, with most focus on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) coming from Chinese, Japanese, and South Korean centers. However, CAM remains an underexplored area of research in the context of FD, and it deserves greater research efforts in order to obtain quality scientific evidence. Furthermore, we propose that the research framework of CAM should not be limited to dysmotility; rather, it could be interpreted within a more holistic context that includes the brain-gut-microbiota axis, as well as novel concepts such as duodenitis, increased mucosal permeability, and infiltration and activation of eosinophils and mast cells, among others. Overall, we provided bibliometrics-based overviews of relevant literature to researchers from different backgrounds and healthcare professionals to provide an in-depth overview of major trends in FD research.

Research Progress for Probiotics Regulating Intestinal Flora to Improve Functional Dyspepsia: A Review

“…Visceral hypersensitivity is a crucial factor in functional gastrointestinal disorder syndrome, greatly influencing the occurrence and severity of symptoms. This is due to an abnormal mucosal immune response activation in relation to the level of inflammatory response and the close proximity of immune cells and sensory neurons [ 105 ]. There are numerous factors related to visceral hypersensitivity and signal transduction, such as the expression of cytokines, the secretion of corticosterone, the release of SCFAs, and microbial metabolites [ 106 ].…”

A Comprehensive Review of Upper Gastrointestinal Symptom Management in Autoimmune Gastritis: Current Insights and Future Directions

“…Additionally, data sharing enables the pooling of information from multiple sources, enhancing the statistical power and generalizability of research findings. Standardized outcome measures and multicenter studies help generate robust evidence, establishing best practices for managing autoimmune gastritis symptoms [ 63 ].…”

The trend and evolution of training in volleyball: A bibliometric analysis of the last five years

“…The analysis also underlines the diversity of sources from which volleyball training research is published, covering a wide range of aspects, from physical to psychological. The identification of these key sources provides important insights for researchers and practitioners and creates a strong basis to further explore this topic in a bibliometric context (Zhang et al, 2023), as well as opportunities for further collaboration and research. The source analysis also confirmed that in academia, the reputation of particular journals and conferences can have a major impact on the recognition and number of citations for research (Zhang et al, 2019).…”