Objective To investigate the output of evidence-based medicine (EBM) researchers in China and elsewhere by examining the EBM domains they work within and the networks that exist among them; using visualization methods to analyze these relationships. This maps the current situation and helps with the identification of areas for future growth. Method We used co-citation matrixes with Pathfinder networks and hierarchical clustering algorithms, and constructed a co-author matrix which were analyzed with a whole network approach. The analyzed matrixes were visualized with the UCINET program. Result Much of the development of EBM has been centered around three authors, David Sackett, Gordon Guyatt and L Manchikanti, within three different clusters. The main authors of EBM articles in China were divided into nine academic domains. The relations among core authors of articles indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) was loose. There was a ber co-authorship network among core authors in the Chinese literature, with three groups and 21 cliques. Nine distinct academic communities appeared to have formed around Li Youping, Liu Ming and Zhang Mingming. Conclusion The EBM literature contains several key clusters, with universities in high-income countries being the source of the majority of articles. Outside China, McMaster University in Canada, the original home of EBM, is the dominant producer of EBM publications. In China, Sichuan University is the main source of EBM publications. The EBM cooperation network in China is comprised of three major groups, the largest and most productive in this sample is led by Li Youping with Liu Ming, Zhang Mingming, Li Jing, Wang Li, Wu Taixiang, and Liu Guanjian as central members.
ObjectiveTo investigate the citation status of systematic reviews on imaging diagnosis in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and provide reference for the development of Chinese imaging diagnosis guidelines. MethodsWe electronically searched PubMed databases to collect systematic reviews on imaging diagnosis. The date was limited from January 1st 2010 to December 31th 2012. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. The citation data of included systematic reviews were obtained on the Web of Science. Citation analysis method was used to analyze the citation frequency of systematic reviews on imaging diagnosis in CPGs. Results292 systematic reviews on imaging diagnosis were included, of which 94% (275/292) were indexed by Science Citation Index. The total citation frequency of these systematic reviews was 5413 (medium:20, range:0 to 131). 28% (78/275) were cited by CPGs. Of which, 7% (19/275) were used as the source of the evidence of recommendations in CPGs. ConclusionThe ratio of systematic reviews cited by CPGs is low, the ratio of being the source of evidence of recommendations of systematic reviews in CPGs is lower, and furthermore, the citation is time-delayed.