PubMed · 15286745
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
2004. Making an impact?. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat1189
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: The Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program, launched in 1984, provides high-quality population health data that underpins a vast body of global health research. However, the scale and growth patterns of DHS-based publications remain underexplored, particularly as donor funding uncertainties threaten program sustainability. OBJECTIVE: We examine temporal trends in DHS-based research output from 1984 to 2025, quantifying growth patterns and publication delays to inform understanding of the program's global research expansion. METHODS: A systematic bibliometric review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Wiley, and CINAHL. Eligible peer-reviewed articles using DHS data between 1984 and 2025 were identified. Annual publication counts were analyzed, segmented regression identified growth inflection points, and timeliness was assessed by calculating lag between survey completion and publication. RESULTS: Over 10,000 DHS-based publications were identified. Annual output rose from isolated studies in the 1980s to several hundred annually by the 2010s. Segmentation analysis revealed two rapid growth phases: a 56-publications/year increase from 2004-2012, and a 71-publications/year increase from 2012 to 2024. Despite this growth, median lag from survey completion to publication remained approximately 5 years, with only a modest recent improvement (Kendall's τ =  -0.623, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: DHS data have fueled exponential growth in global health research over four decades, confirming their vital role in evidence generation. However, persistent publication delays highlight the need to shorten the pathway from data collection to dissemination through strengthened research capacity in low- and middle-income countries. Sustained funding is essential to maintain this critical evidence source.
BACKGROUND: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of widely used anthropogenic chemicals. Concerns regarding their persistence and potential adverse effects have led to multiple secondary research publications. Here, we aim to assess the resulting evidence base in the systematic secondary literature by examining research gaps, evaluating the quality of reviews, and exploring interdisciplinary connections. METHODS: This study employed a systematic evidence-mapping approach to assess the secondary literature on the biological, environmental, and medical aspects of exposure to 35 fluorinated compounds. The inclusion criteria encompassed systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals, pre-prints, and theses. Comprehensive searches across electronic databases and grey literature identified relevant reviews. Data extraction and synthesis involved mapping literature content and narrative descriptions. We employed a modified version of the AMSTAR2 checklist to evaluate the methodological rigour of the reviews. A bibliometric data analysis uncovered patterns and trends in the academic literature. A research protocol for this study was previously pre-registered (osf.io/2tpn8) and published (Vendl et al., Environment International 158 (2022) 106973). The database is freely accessible through the interactive and user-friendly web application of this systematic evidence map at https://hi-this-is-lorenzo.shinyapps.io/PFAS_SEM_Shiny_App/. RESULTS: Our map includes a total of 175 systematic reviews. Over the years, there has been a steady increase in the annual number of publications, with a notable surge in 2021. Most reviews focused on human exposure, whereas environmental and animal-related reviews were fewer and often lacked a rigorous systematic approach to literature search and screening. Review outcomes were predominantly associated with human health, particularly with reproductive and children's developmental health. Animal reviews primarily focused on studies conducted in controlled laboratory settings, and wildlife reviews were characterised by an over-representation of birds and fish species. Recent reviews increasingly incorporated quantitative synthesis methodologies. The methodological strengths of the reviews included detailed descriptions of study selection processes and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. However, weaknesses were observed in the critical lack of detail in reporting methods. A bibliometric analysis revealed that the most productive authors collaborate within their own country, leading to limited and clustered international collaborations. CONCLUSIONS: In this overview of the available systematic secondary literature, we map literature content, assess reviews' methodological quality, highlight data gaps, and draw research network clusters. We aim to facilitate literature reviews, guide future research initiatives, and enhance opportunities for cross-country collaboration. Furthermore, we discuss how this systematic evidence map and its publicly available database benefit scientists, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders by providing access to current systematic secondary literature on PFAS exposure.
BACKGROUND: Journal impact factor (IF) is linked to the probability of a paper being cited and is progressively becoming incorporated into researchers' curricula vitae. Furthermore, the decision as to which journal a given study should be submitted, may well be based on the trend in the journal's overall quality. This study sought to assess time trends in journal IF in the field of public, environmental and occupational health. METHODS: We used the IFs of 80 Public Health journals that were registered by the Science Citation Index from 1992 through 2003 and had been listed for a minimum period of the previous 3 years. Impact factor time trends were assessed using a linear regression model, in which the dependent variable was IF and the independent variable, the year. The slope of the model and its statistical significance were taken as the indicator of annual change. RESULTS: The IF range for the journals covered went from 0.18 to 5.2 in 2003. Although there was no statistical association between annual change and mean IF, most of the fastest growing journals registered mean IFs in excess of 1.5, and some represented emerging areas of public health research. Graphs displaying IF trends are shown. CONCLUSION: In view of the delay between the publication of IFs and that of any given paper, knowing the trend in IF is essential in order to make a correct choice of journal.