Characteristics of Bibliometric Analyses of the Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Literature: A Scoping Review

Characteristics of Bibliometric Analyses of the Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Literature: A Scoping Review | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Characteristics of Bibliometric Analyses of the Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Literature: A Scoping Review Henry Liu, Aimun Qadeer Shah, Hamas Tariq, Rayhane Rebaine, Sarah Ali, and 9 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5507224/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Introduction: Research on complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) continues to grow. Bibliometric analyses (BAs) are valuable to assess research trends, identify gaps, and understand the evolution of a body of literature, yet there are no systematic or scoping reviews on how these BAs are conducted. This scoping review aimed to systematically review and synthesize BAs on CAIM literature to inform and guide future bibliometric studies in this field and beyond. Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL Scopus, and Web of Science in January 2023. Eligible articles were BAs of CAIM literature. Screening and data extraction were completed independently and in duplicate by at least two reviewers, with findings summarized descriptively. Results: The review included 286 articles published between 1995 and 2023, with approximately 75% published in the last five years. Studies were conducted in 36 countries, with China (50%) leading in contributions. All articles used performance analysis techniques, while 80% also used science-mapping techniques. The most commonly used performance analysis metrics were ‘total publications’ (93%) and ‘total citations’ (60%). Co-word (69%) and co-authorship (62%) analysis were the most common science mapping techniques. VOSviewer and CiteSpace were the predominant visualization software employed. Conclusions: This review demonstrates large methodological diversity in the conduct of CAIM bibliometrics, highlighting a need for standardized practices. Future research should focus on developing uniform methodologies and incorporating diverse metrics and alternative data sources to enhance analysis reliability. Health sciences/Medical research Health sciences/Health care/Health policy Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) is a complex term referring to three distinct concepts related to the use of non-conventional medicine (1,2). “Complementary medicine” describes non-conventional therapeutic approaches used together with conventional therapies (1). “Alternative medicine” describes non-conventional therapeutic approaches used in replacement of conventional therapies (1). “Integrative medicine” describes the combined use of both conventional and non-conventional therapies in a coordinated manner (1,2). For the purpose of this study, each of these approaches may also incorporate elements of “traditional medicine,” which is the “knowledge, skills and practices based on the theories, beliefs and experiences indigenous to different cultures, used in the maintenance of health and in the prevention, diagnosis, improvement or treatment of physical and mental illness” (3). CAIM practitioners have continually emphasized a holistic approach to health, considering socio-cultural factors and well-being as an essential part of medical care (2,4). Users of such therapies often perceive CAIM as better at providing individualized, person-centered care compared to mainstream health approaches (5,6). The prevalence of CAIM use is increasing worldwide, and, accordingly, the body of literature on CAIM research has grown immensely, with the steepest increase in CAIM publications observed between the mid-2000s and mid-2010s (7,8). Identifying broad trends in CAIM research literature and exploring specific topics (e.g., acupuncture, aromatherapy) is crucial for understanding the evolving focus of this field and guiding future research and policy efforts to address gaps in evidence and optimize patient care. While some CAIM therapies (e.g., yoga for depressive symptoms (9) or acupuncture for chronic pain (10)) have evidence of safety and efficacy, many other therapies have insufficient evidence on effectiveness or safety (11,12). Furthermore, even when basic effectiveness and safety are established, questions often remain about key characteristics such as intervention dose and implementation or applicability to different patient populations and settings (13, 14, 15). Bibliometric analyses (BAs) can be used to detect such knowledge gaps and to identify research trends that help predict whether these knowledge gaps are likely to be met (16). Conducting a BA involves applying quantitative statistical techniques to bibliometric data (e.g., total number of citations, total number of publications) and can be used for a variety of purposes, such as identifying patterns in a given field of research (16, 17). BA techniques can broadly belong to categories of performance analysis (i.e., techniques measuring contributions of research constituents) or science mapping (i.e., techniques measuring relationships between research constituents) (16, 17). Examples of research constituents include authors, countries, institutions, and topics (14). Performance analysis techniques can further be divided into publication-related metrics (e.g., total number of publications), citation-related metrics (e.g., average citations, total number of citations), and citation-and-publication-related metrics (e.g., h-index, g-index, proportion of cited publications) (16). Science mapping techniques can include methods such as citation analysis, co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, co-word analysis, and co-authorship analysis (16). For instance, co-citation analysis examines the frequency of publications being cited together, which may reveal thematic clusters (16). Further, enrichment techniques of network metrics (i.e., quantitative measures of research constituents’ relative importance), clustering (i.e., grouping of similar objects using clustering algorithms), and visualization (i.e., graphical visualizations of research constituents’ connections) can be employed to enhance understanding the results of science mapping techniques (16). For instance, software like VOSviewer can be used to visualize thematic clusters in co-citation analysis graphically (16). Advantages of BAs include facilitating the examination of large datasets that are not feasible for investigation by manual review (e.g., literature reviews) (16). Further, the relatively low cost and rapidity of conducting BAs allow for replicable methods (16,18). For such reasons, the use of bibliometric techniques across different scientific fields, including CAIM, is becoming increasingly popular (19,20). To the best of our knowledge, no systematic or scoping reviews have been conducted on BAs of CAIM therapies. A preliminary search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Scopus database revealed no existing systematic or scoping reviews on the topic. A scoping review, which involves mapping the current literature and identifying gaps in research (21), is a more appropriate methodology to summarize the literature on CAIM BAs than a systematic review, which has a narrower focus (22). Synthesizing BAs on CAIM will provide insight into trends, such as the types of CAIM literature typically analyzed from a bibliometric lens, statistical techniques that BAs on CAIM utilize, and, more broadly, where the field of CAIM is headed. While there are some guidelines on how to conduct BAs (16), there is no universal standard or consensus in the literature on what a BA should entail. Accordingly, this review will also improve understanding of how BAs are currently conducted on this topic. Thus, the purpose of this review is to understand the characteristics of BAs of CAIM research literature, which can inform future work within the field. Methods Approach The study was conducted using established scoping review methods outlined in Chapter 11 of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis (23). A previously published protocol describes the objective, eligibility criteria, and proposed methods of this study (24). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist was also completed. The study protocol was registered and made accessible via the Open Science Framework (OSF) before participant recruitment began. OSF was also used to share study materials and raw data, which can be found at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JSQWY. Inclusion criteria The only eligible study design was bibliometric analyses (encompassing terms for “bibliometric analysis”, “scientometric analysis”, and “citation analysis”), or articles that include both a bibliometric analysis and another study design (e.g., bibliometric analysis and systematic review) published in peer-reviewed journals. All included BAs focused on one or more CAIM therapies, as defined by a published operational definition of CAIM (25). This operational definition was created using a systematic search of four peer-reviewed or other quality-assessed resource types: 1) peer-reviewed articles from seven major bibliographic databases, 2) “Aims and Scope” webpages of peer-reviewed CAIM journals, 3) entries containing CAIM therapies in highly accessed online encyclopedias, and 4) highly ranked websites resulting from Health On the Net Code of Conduct (HONcode) searches (25). To date, this operational definition includes the greatest number of evidence sources and is the only one that captures the concept of “integrative medicine”, alongside “complementary medicine” and “alternative medicine” (2, 25). Gray literature (i.e., difficult to find literature) sources were excluded as BA studies are unlikely to be found outside of traditional academic publishing channels. Conference abstracts and study protocols were also excluded as they were unlikely to contain adequate information required to describe the characteristics of BAs on CAIM literature. Finally, all non-English publications were excluded due to language constraints of the authors. Search Strategy The following databases were searched from inception to the date of the search execution on January 5, 2023: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and AMED (accessed via the OVID research platform), as well as CINAHL (accessed via EBSCOhost), Scopus, and Web of Science. The search strategy included a comprehensive search string of CAIM terms (26) encompassing 604 distinct therapies described previously in an operational definition of CAIM (25). The comprehensive search string of CAIM (26) was combined with search terms for BAs (e.g., bibliometric analysis, statistical bibliography, citation analysis). Relevant scientific names and/or synonyms were added as a term (i.e., keyword, phrase), alongside relevant Boolean operators. The search strategy, including all identified keywords and equivalent index terms, was also adapted for each included database. The full search strategy for each database has been made available on OSF at https://osf.io/a723x. Sources of Evidence Screening and Selection Following the search, citations were collated, exported into Covidence software (27), and duplicates removed. Title/abstract followed by full-text screenings were conducted independently and in duplicate on Covidence. Prior to each screening stage, pilot screening of twenty titles/abstracts and ten full texts was completed (HL, AQS) and discrepancies were discussed in consultation with JYN to ensure consistency. Reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage were also recorded. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion with three authors (HL, AQS, JYN). All records screened at the title and abstract stage have been made available on OSF (https://osf.io/bca3f), as well as records of conflicts at the full-text stage and how they were resolved (https://osf.io/2ny7b). Data Extraction The data extraction form was developed in two stages and was informed by Donthu et al.’s (16) overview on how to conduct a bibliometric analysis. This is a highly cited guideline that is recognized as an effective resource for conducting BAs with methodological rigour. The use of this guideline also allowed us to standardize our data extraction process, facilitating the identification and easy labelling of key variables, metrics, and analytical techniques relevant to BA studies. In stage one, HL and AQS selected ten articles at random that met the inclusion criteria from a preliminary search of CAIM and BA search terms on Scopus and used the form to independently extract information. HL and AQS then met to resolve discrepancies, before meeting with JYN to discuss adaptations to the form. In stage two, HL and AQS identified the ten most highly cited articles that met the inclusion criteria from a preliminary search on Scopus and independently extracted information from the articles using the latest version of the data extraction form. Another meeting was held between HL and AQS, and then with JYN, to discuss and approve the latest version of the extraction form. The following information was extracted using Excel software: title, author, year, country, study aim, secondary study design (if applicable), type of CAIM(s), health condition or population addressed, main findings, conclusions, and limitations. Additionally, bibliometric details were summarized, including databases searched, type of methodology (performance analysis vs. science mapping), number of studies included, metrics used, reporting method, visualization software, and alignment with the bibliometric analysis guidelines from Donthu et al. (16). To ensure consistency and quality, a pilot step was completed where all reviewers (HT, RR, SA, TP, TCY, NK, ML, MK) extracted information from the same five articles. A meeting was held between HL and AQS to review the extractions, resolve discrepancies, and provide feedback. Upon completion of the pilot step, reviewers (HT, RR, SA, TP, TCY, NK, ML, MK) were divided equally into two teams led by HL and AQS. Teams were further divided into pairs of two reviewers to complete independent and duplicate data extraction of the same set of bibliometric full texts. These duplicate extractions were resolved between pairs and reviewed by HL and AQS to ensure consistency. Any conflicts that could not be resolved were discussed with JYN. The complete data extraction table of all included articles has been made available on OSF (https://osf.io/acyr5). Data Analysis The results of the scoping review were summarized as frequencies and other descriptive statistics including mean, median, mode, and interquartile range. Data were also presented in table and figure format. Of note, the types of CAIMs that were included in the BAs were first categorized using an operational definition list of CAIM therapies adopted by the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field (28). This operational definition is an all-inclusive list (26), such that not every included therapy (e.g., stem cell therapy) is necessarily always used as a CAIM therapy. Where applicable, the CAIMs were categorized as specifically as possible rather than as part of broad, enumerated therapies (e.g., acupuncture was counted as its own category rather than included in the count for Traditional Chinese Medicine). However, articles that focused on multiple CAIM therapies were counted as part of multiple categories (e.g., ‘bee venom acupuncture’ was categorized as both apitherapy and acupuncture). Then, CAIM therapies were further described according to the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) categories for CAIM (29) which include whole medical systems, biologically-based practices, mind-body therapies, manipulative and body-based practices, and energy healing. Specifically, when analyzing the mean, median, and mode of the total number of performance analysis metrics used in each BA, we only assigned values for metrics or techniques that were described in Donthu et al.’s (2021) guidance. This was due to the large variation in metrics calculated across different BAs, and potentially different interpretations of what may constitute a ‘distinct’ metric. Results Search Results A total of 4461 records were identified through database searching, and, after duplicate deletion, 3090 records were screened by title and abstract. After excluding 2560 in the title and abstract screening phase, 527 records were screened by full-text, of which 286 articles were ultimately included. Figure 1 provides an overview of the selection process. The complete reference list of all included articles is available in Supplementary File 1 . General Article Characteristics The general characteristics of the included articles are shown in Table 1 . Included studies were published between 1995 and 2023, with three-quarters (74.83%; n=214) published in the last 5 years (2019-2023). Studies were conducted in 36 countries, as shown in Figure 2 , with the most represented countries being China (50.00%; n=143), India (4.90%; n=14), Brazil (4.55%; n=13), the United States (4.55%; n=13), and South Korea (4.20%; n=12). Although all included articles were considered to be BAs, there was variation in how articles self-described their study design. Most explicitly described themselves as a “bibliometric analysis” (77.97%; n=223) or a similar descriptor such as “bibliometric profile,” “bibliometric review,” or “bibliometric survey” (6.99%; n=20). Other labels involved descriptors associated with “visualization” (e.g., visual science mapping, network visualization) (9.79%; n=28). Some also described their study as a “scientometric analysis” (i.e., studies employing statistical methods to analyze bibliographic data of scientific publications) (4.90%; n=14) or related terms such as “scientometric review” or “scientometric assessment” (4.20%; n=12). A minority of studies also incorporated secondary study designs (10.49%; n=30), including systematic reviews (3.85%; n=11), literature reviews (2.45%; n=7), and other review designs (e.g., short review, critical review, review) (2.45%; n=7). CAIM Characteristics There were several types of CAIMs that the included BA articles focused on, as seen in Table 1 . A completed data extraction form is available on OSF (https://osf.io/urmnj). These were further classified as part of five general categories of CAIM that are described by the NCI: whole medical systems (e.g., traditional Chinese Medicine, naturopathy) (n=94), biologically-based practices (e.g., curcumin, St. John’s wort) (n=85), mind-body therapies (e.g., mindfulness, meditation) (n=42), and manipulative and body-based practices (e.g., chiropractic, massage) (n=7). Five articles focused on CAIMs that encompassed two NCI categories. These included mind-body therapies and whole medical systems (n=2), biologically-based practices and whole medical systems (n=1), manipulative and body-based practices and whole medical systems (n=1), and mind-body therapies and manipulative and body-based practices (n=1). Notably, there were no bibliometric studies on energy healing as a type of CAIM therapy (e.g., reiki, therapeutic touch). Further, 26 studies focused on CAIM in general, and another 27 studies might not be universally recognized as CAIM and could not be easily categorized (e.g., stem cell therapies). Target Health Topic or Condition As seen in Table 1 , over half of the included bibliometric analyses were not focused on CAIM in relation to a specific health condition or topic (52.45%; n=150). The remaining articles focused on topics of neurological and/or neuropsychiatric disorders (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease, depression, epilepsy) (9.09%; n=26), cancer (6.29%; n=18), analgesia and/or pain broadly (4.90%; n=14), COVID-19 (4.55%; n=13), cardiovascular conditions (2.0%; n=6), diabetes and associated metabolic conditions (2.10%; n=6), sexual and reproductive health (1.75%; n=5), neuropathic pain (1.40%; n=4), insomnia (1.05%; n=3) among others. Sources of Bibliometric Data Web of Science (WoS) was the most commonly used source of retrieving bibliometric data (63.29%; n=181), followed by Scopus (20.98%; n=60), PubMed (16.08%; n=46), MEDLINE (7.34%; n=21), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (6.99%; n=20), and EMBASE (6.64%; n=19). Regionally focused platforms, such as the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (6.99%; n=20), Wanfang Data (3.50%; n=10), China Biomedical Literature (CBM), and Indian MEDLARS (IndMED) (1.0%; n=3), were less frequently accessed. Google Scholar was occasionally used (2.1%; n=6) for bibliometric studies. The majority of studies used only one source, while about a quarter of BA’s reported using two or more sources of bibliometric data (24.48%; n=70). The Number of Included Documents in BAs There was a large range in the number of documents that each BA of CAIM literature included, between 12 to 797,632 documents. The mean, median, and mode values of the number of documents analyzed were 7,910.9, 869.5, and 100, respectively. The interquartile range was 2541.75. Four studies did not specify the number of documents analyzed. Performance Analysis Techniques All included articles used performance analysis metrics in their BA of CAIM literature. The two most commonly calculated performance analysis metrics employed were metrics of total publications (97.55%; n=279) and total citations (66.78%; n=191). This was followed by average citations (39.51%; n=113), number of contributing authors (30.42%; n=87), h-index (23.78%; n=68), and sole-authored publications (8.39%; n=24). The total number of Donthu-aligned metrics employed in BAs ranged from 1 to 9, and the mean, median, mode, and interquartile range values of the number of metrics used were 2.9, 3, 1, and 2, respectively. Other very commonly used metrics, which were not described in Donthu et al.’s guidance on BAs, included journal impact factor (47.55%; n=136), citation burst strength (26.92%; n=77), and journal quartile rank (9.79%; n=28). Science Mapping Techniques The majority of included articles (77.97%; n=223) also used science mapping metrics in their BA of CAIM literature. Of these science mapping techniques, co-word analysis (62.59%; n=179) and co-authorship analysis (55.24%; n=158) were the most frequently conducted, followed by co-citation analyses (31.12%; n=89) and citation analyses (28.67%; n=8299). Bibliographic coupling (1.75%; n=5) was rarely employed. The mean, median, mode, and interquartile range values of the number of science mapping techniques employed were 2.1, 2, 3, and 3, respectively. Science mapping techniques were most often presented using visualization softwares such VOSviewer (38.81%; n=111) and CiteSpace (26.57%; n=76). Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review that systematically examines the characteristics of BAs on CAIM literature. Overall, our findings highlight that an increasing number of researchers, particularly in the last 5 years, have been employing BA methodology to analyze CAIM literature. A large number of these studies are concentrated on therapies such as acupuncture, and other Traditional Chinese Medicine practices. This review also identifies considerable methodological variability across BAs in CAIM, such as diversity in the number of documents analyzed, the number and type of databases used, the number and types of metrics used, and the ways in which the data are presented. Comparative Literature The increasing use of bibliometrics globally (30) is mirrored in the CAIM literature, where we have captured a notable surge in the number of BAs on the topic in the last five years. This rise underscores the growing recognition of bibliometrics as a valuable tool for mapping research trends and evaluating scientific output on a particular topic (31). Our review shows how bibliometrics can illuminate potential research areas, identify influential authors, and reveal the impact of key studies, providing a comprehensive understanding of developments in the CAIM field. Specifically, performance analysis metrics quantify research output and influence, enhancing understanding of research trends and impact (16). Science mapping techniques visualize the intellectual structure and development of research fields, providing insights into how key topics evolve and relations between studies (16). In our review, it is notable that 100% of the included studies employed performance analysis metrics, which underscores their fundamental role in evaluating research productivity and impact. Performance analysis metrics are essential for providing a quantitative basis for assessing research contributions (16, 32, 33). This ubiquity reflects their perceived importance and ease of application in bibliometric studies. However, while these basic metrics provide valuable information about the volume and visibility of research, they might offer only a partial view of the quality and impact of scholarly work. Performance analysis metrics like the h-index may offer a more nuanced picture of research productivity (35), but were far less commonly used among the examined BAs. Performance analysis alone may not account for all aspects of research impact, such as the influence of specific articles on the field or relationships between research constituents, which science mapping can offer. While a large majority of examined BA (n=228) utilized science mapping techniques, not all studies included these methods. The choice to employ science mapping may be influenced by several factors, including the complexity and resource demands associated with these techniques (16, 32, 33). However, this review also echoes concerns regarding the lack of standardized variables used across bibliometric studies in CAIM (17, 34). Our review shows significant variability in the methodologies employed by different studies, particularly concerning the metrics used and the scope of data analyzed. For instance, some bibliometric analyses focused on relatively small subsets of documents, while others encompassed large-scale datasets, analyzing hundreds of thousands of publications. Similarly, the number of databases consulted varied widely—from a single database to multiple sources. This variability highlights the absence of a universally accepted standard or formal evaluation framework for bibliometric analyses, which complicates the interpretation and comparison of results across studies. A promising step towards addressing these concerns is the development of the Guidance List for the repOrting of Bibliometric AnaLyses (GLOBAL) (35). The GLOBAL initiative aims to provide minimum guidelines for the reporting of bibliometric analyses (35). By creating a consensus-based framework for reporting, GLOBAL will help ensure that bibliometric methods are applied consistently and that results can be more reliably interpreted and compared across studies (35, 36). The project, informed by a scoping review of bibliometric reporting recommendations (37), is currently in its Delphi process to refine a 32-item checklist. This will likely help to promote transparency, robustness, and completeness in the reporting of BAs (36, 38, 39, 40). Concerns have especially been raised over the increasing conduct of BAs outside the information and library sciences (ILS) field, and a potential lack of quality control and research standards (33). While the number of WoS-indexed bibliometric studies published in ILS journals is lower than the number published in non-ILS journals, non-ILS articles have a lower average rate of citations per article (41). Ellegaard & Wallin posited there exists “a slower awareness of bibliometric methods in the community outside the information professionals” (41). The absence of standardized variables contributes to inconsistencies in the reported findings and limits the generalizability of bibliometric insights. González‑Alcaide had further examined the extent to which non-ILS BAs were theoretically grounded in the bibliometric sciences (42). As compared to ILS BAs, a lower proportion of bibliometric studies in the life sciences and biomedicine (LSB) field made reference to models (11.42% vs 13.63%), theories (2.39% vs 4.92%), or laws (1.38% vs 3.29%) (33). An additional consideration is that the majority of included BAs on CAIM literature relied on data from Web of Science, a product of Clarivate Analysis (43). This finding draws attention to the central role that Clarivate Analytics has in shaping methodological standards for bibliometric analyses. The heavy reliance on a single data source raises questions about the standardization and uniformity of bibliometric methodologies. While Web of Science offers comprehensive coverage and well-established metrics, the reliance on this single database suggests a potential bias towards research sources and metrics indexed to this database, which may not fully represent the diversity of CAIM research (44, 45, 46). Further, not all researchers or institutions have access to WoS due to its subscription-based model, which may skew research evaluations (47, 48) and impact the fairness of bibliometric assessments (49). This lack of standardization of BAs also complicates the comparison of results across studies, as differences in methodology can lead to varying conclusions about the state and development of research trends. The lack of a formal evaluation framework for bibliometric analyses means that researchers have significant flexibility in choosing their methods, which can lead to variability in the quality and reliability of the results. This variability can diminish the reproducibility and robustness of bibliometric studies, as different approaches may yield inconsistent findings. Standardization would address these issues by establishing clear guidelines for the selection and application of metrics, ensuring that analyses are conducted consistently and comparably. Such standardization could enhance the credibility of bibliometric studies and improve their utility for researchers, policymakers, and funding agencies. This would be particularly valuable in interdisciplinary research areas like CAIM, where diverse methodologies and research outputs need to be integrated to inform practice and policy effectively. Implications and Future Directions The insights gained from this review have important implications for the field of bibliometrics in the context of CAIM literature and beyond. Firstly, the predominance of performance analysis metrics such as total publications or total citations, while beneficial for assessing research output and impact, may provide an incomplete picture of the quality and relevance of CAIM research. Future bibliometric studies should incorporate a broader range of metrics to conduct evaluations of research impact, such as g-, h-, and i-indices. The findings also point to a need for more inclusive and varied data sources to ensure comprehensive evaluations of research topics. Finally the variability observed in the conduct of BAs draws attention to a need for greater standardization and methodological rigour in the field, such as a formal evaluation framework, in order to enhance the reproducibility and reliability of bibliometric assessments. Strengths and Limitations Strengths of this study include adherence to the JBI framework for scoping reviews (20), as well as the use of a comprehensive systematic search strategy across several bibliographic databases, which allowed us to identify a large number of eligible articles. Further, interpretation of the findings was strengthened by the fact that a total of eight authors extracted articles in duplicate, and all extractions were then reviewed by a third reviewer. However, there are some limitations that must be acknowledged. Firstly, we included studies that were only written in the English language, and accordingly, we might be missing important international work. This is particularly relevant because CAIM may be practiced more frequently in some non-English speaking regions of the world, such as traditional Chinese medicine in China, and we were not able to assess this literature. However, this issue is mitigated to an extent by the fact that we included BAs that included publications in all languages. Another limitation is that our eligibility criteria included any BAs that focused on CAIMs which were part of the comprehensive list adopted by the Cochrane Complementary Medicine group (25, 26). This is considered to be an all-inclusive list, where not all items listed are necessarily always applied in a CAIM context (e.g., stem cell therapy, physical therapy, photodynamic therapy). As such, we may have included some BAs that were focused on topics that were part of this list, but that may not have been intended to be considered as ‘CAIMs.’ This limitation was addressed through our consultation with CAIM experts (LSW, JYN) to ensure that we made well-informed and careful decisions on which BAs were appropriately aligned with our inclusion criteria, particularly focusing on topics which were perceived to be reasonably applicable within a human health context. Conclusions The present scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of BAs on CAIM literature. The substantial increase in BAs over the last five years indicates growing interest in understanding and evaluating the impact of CAIM research through quantitative measures. The predominance of performance analysis techniques and science mapping techniques such as ‘total publications’ or ‘co-word’ analysis underscores their importance to assess research productivity and impact. However, the variability in the way that BAs were conducted, including differences in data sources and metrics, points to a need for greater standardization and methodological rigour. List Of Abbreviations BA: bibliometric analysis CAIM: complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine GLOBAL: Guidance List for the repOrting of Bibliometric AnaLyses HONcode: Health on the Net Code of Conduct ILS: information and library sciences JBI: Joanna Briggs Institute NCI: National Cancer Institute’s NIH: National Institute of Health OSF: Open Science Framework PRISMA-ScR: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews Declarations Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate This study involved a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature only; it did not require ethics approval or consent to participate. Consent for Publication All authors consent to this manuscript’s publication. Availability of Data and Materials All relevant data are included in this manuscript or posted on the Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JSQWY Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This study was unfunded. Authors' Contributions HL: collected and analysed data, co-drafted the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published. AQS: collected and analysed data, co-drafted the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published. HT: assisted with the collection and analysis of data, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published. RR: assisted with the collection and analysis of data, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published. SA: assisted with the collection and analysis of data, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published. TCY: assisted with the collection and analysis of data, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published. NK: assisted with the collection and analysis of data, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published. ML: assisted with the collection and analysis of data, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published. TP: assisted with the collection and analysis of data, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published. MK: assisted with the collection and analysis of data, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published. LSW: provided methodological guidance, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published. DM: provided methodological guidance, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published. HC: provided methodological guidance, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published. JYN: designed and conceptualized the study, collected and analysed data, drafted the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published. Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge Khadija Farooq for her support in the data extraction process. References National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health [Internet]. Complementary, Alternative, or Integrative Health: What’s In a Name? Available from: https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/complementary-alternative-or-integrative-health-whats-in-a-name Ng JY, Boon HS, Thompson AK, Whitehead CR. Making sense of “alternative”, “complementary”, “unconventional” and “integrative” medicine: exploring the terms and meanings through a textual analysis. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 May 20;16:134. World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Apr 5]. Traditional Medicine. Available from: https://www.afro.who.int/health-topics/traditional-medicine Bradbury J, Avila C, Grace S. Practice-Based Research in Complementary Medicine: Could N-of-1 Trials Become the New Gold Standard? Healthcare. 2020 Mar;8(1):15. Bishop FL, Yardley L, Lewith GT. Treat or Treatment: A Qualitative Study Analyzing Patients’ Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Am J Public Health. 2008 Sep;98(9):1700–5. Dodds S, Bulmer S, Murphy A. Consumer Value in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Health Care Services. Australas Mark J. 2014 Aug 1;22(3):218–29. Ng JY. Insight into the characteristics of research published in traditional, complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine journals: a bibliometric analysis. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2021 Jul 1;21(1):185. Tangkiatkumjai M, Boardman H, Walker DM. Potential factors that influence usage of complementary and alternative medicine worldwide: a systematic review. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2020 Nov 23;20(1):363. Cramer H, Lauche R, Langhorst J, Dobos G. Yoga for Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Depress Anxiety. 2013;30(11):1068–83. Vickers AJ, Vertosick EA, Lewith G, MacPherson H, Foster NE, Sherman KJ, Irnich D, Witt CM, Linde K, Acupuncture Trialists' Collaboration. Acupuncture for chronic pain: update of an individual patient data meta-analysis. The journal of pain. 2018 May 1;19(5):455-74. Pratt M, Wieland S, Ahmadzai N, Butler C, Wolfe D, Pussagoda K, et al. A scoping review of network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions. Syst Rev. 2020 Apr 30;9(1):97. Ekor M. The growing use of herbal medicines: issues relating to adverse reactions and challenges in monitoring safety. Front Pharmacol [Internet]. 2014 Jan 10 [cited 2024 Apr 5];4. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2013.00177/full Barnes J. Quality, efficacy and safety of complementary medicines: fashions, facts and the future. Part II: Efficacy and safety. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;55(4):331–40. Ng JY, Lee MS, Liu J, Steel A, Wieland LS, Witt CM, et al. How can meta-research be used to evaluate and improve the quality of research in the field of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine? Integr Med Res. 2024. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2024.101068 Raja M, Cramer H, Lee MS, Wieland LS, Ng JY. Addressing the challenges of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine research: An international perspective and proposed strategies moving forward. Forthcoming in Perspectives on Integrative Medicine. 2024. Available from: https://doi.org/10.56986/pim.2024.06.004 Donthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, Pandey N, Lim WM. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J Bus Res. 2021 Sep 1;133:285–96. Hood WW, Wilson CS. The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics. 2001 Oct;52:291-314. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017919924342 Rowlands I. What are we measuring? Refocusing on some fundamentals in the age of desktop bibliometrics. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2018 Apr 1;365(8):fny059. Ellegaard O, Wallin JA. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics. 2015 Dec 1;105(3):1809–31. González-Alcaide G. Bibliometric studies outside the information science and library science field: uncontainable or uncontrollable? Scientometrics. 2021 Aug 1;126(8):6837–70. Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth, 18(10), 2119-2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 19;18(1):143. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Chapter 11. JBI; 2020. p. 2119-2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 Ng JY, Liu H, Shah AQ, Wieland LS, Moher D. Characteristics of bibliometric analyses of the complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine literature: A scoping review protocol. J Integr Med. 2024;22(1):44-50. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.130326.2 Ng JY, Dhawan T, Dogadova E, Taghi-Zada Z, Vacca A, Wieland LS, et al. Operational definition of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine derived from a systematic search. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2022;22(1):104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-022-03556-7 Ng JY, Dhawan T, Dogadova E, Taghi-Zada Z, Vacca A, Fajardo RG, et al. A comprehensive search string informed by an operational definition of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine for systematic bibliographic database search strategies. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2022;22(1):200. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-022-03683-1 Covidence systematic review software. Veritas Health Innovation; Melbourne, Australia. Available from: www.covidence.org Cochrane Complementary Medicine Group. Operational Definition of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine: The Cochrane Collaboration 2022. 2022 Available from: https://cam.cochrane.org/operational-definition-complementary-medicine National Cancer Institute. Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2024. Available from: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam Mokhnacheva YV, Tsvetkova VA. Development of bibliometrics as a scientific field. Scientific and Technical Information Processing. 2020 Jul;47:158-63. https://doi.org/10.3103/S014768822003003X Fassin Y, Rousseau R. Use of bibliometrics-related terms, their evolution, and the growth of metrics in science. Journal of Scientometric Research. 2023 Sep 4;12(2):509-19. https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.12.2.048 Noyons ECM, Moed HF, Van Raan AFJ. Integrating research performance analysis and science mapping. Scientometrics. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02459614 Cobo MJ, López-Herrera AG, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F. Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2011;62(7):1382-1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525 Jappe A. Professional standards in bibliometric research evaluation? A meta-evaluation of European assessment practice 2005–2019. PloS one. 2020 Apr 20;15(4):e0231735. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231735 Ng JY, Haustein S, Ebrahimzadeh S, Chen C, Sabe M, Solmi M, Moher D. Guidance List for repOrting Bibliometric AnaLyses (GLOBAL): A Research Protocol. Available from: https://osf.io/nvu6w Moher D. Reporting research results: a moral obligation for all researchers. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. 2007 May 1;54(5):331. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03022653 Ng JY, Liu H, Masood M, Syed N, Stephen D, Ayala AP, Sabé M, Solmi M, Waltman L, Haustein, S, Moher, D. Guidance for the Reporting of Bibliometric Analyses: A Scoping Review. medRxiv. 2024:2024.08.26.24312538. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.26.24312538 Bornmann L, Bowman BF, Bauer J, Marx W, Schier H, Palzenberger M. Bibliometric standards for evaluating research institutes in the natural sciences. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9445.003.0015 Gagnier JJ, Kienle G, Altman DG, Moher D, Sox H, Riley D. The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. Global advances in health and medicine. 2013 Sep;2(5):38-43. https://doi.org/10.7453/gahmj.2013.008 Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS medicine. 2010 Feb 16;7(2):e1000217. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 Costas R, Bordons M. The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of informetrics. 2007 Jul 1;1(3):193-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.02.001 Jonkers K, Derrick GE. The bibliometric bandwagon: Characteristics of bibliometric articles outside the field literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2012 Apr;63(4):829-36. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22620 Ellegaard O, Wallin JA. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?. Scientometrics. 2015 Dec;105:1809-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z González-Alcaide G. Bibliometric studies outside the information science and library science field: uncontainable or uncontrollable?. Scientometrics. 2021 Aug;126(8):6837-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04061-3 Jappe A. Professional standards in bibliometric research evaluation? A meta-evaluation of European assessment practice 2005–2019. PloS one. 2020 Apr 20;15(4):e0231735. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231735 Gingras Y, Rousseau R. Web of Science and the journal impact factor: A systematic review of the risks and limitations. Scientometrics. 2018;115(3):1017-37. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2752-5 Harzing AW, van der Wal R. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Eur Sci Edit. 2009;35(4):74-9. doi: 10.1080/01419990903259646. Van Leeuwen TN, Moed HF. The bibliometric effects of the subscription-based access model on research evaluation. J Informetr. 2009;3(2):137-45. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2008.10.002 Börner K, Wylie B. The role of bibliometric indicators in assessing research impact: A review of common pitfalls and recommendations. Nat Rev Phys. 2020;2(1):17-28. doi: 10.1038/s42254-019-0009-5 Tables Table 1: General Characteristics of Included Bibliometric Analyses (n=286) Characteristic Number of Articles Percent of Articles Year of Publication 1995-1999 4 1.40% 2000-2004 4 1.40% 2005-2009 4 1.40% 2010-2014 19 6.64% 2015-2019 60 20.98% 2020-2023 195 68.18% Top 5 Countries of Publication China 143 50.00% India 14 4.90% Brazil 13 4.55% United States 13 4.55% South Korea 12 4.20% Self-Described Study Design Bibliometric analysis and/or related bibliometric terms 239 83.57% Visualization analysis and/or related visualization terms 28 9.79% Scientometric Analysis and/or related scientometric terms 25 8.74% Secondary Study Design Yes 30 10.49% Systematic review 11 3.85% Literature review 7 2.45% Scoping review 1 0.35% Meta-analysis 1 0.35% Other review 7 2.45% Other design 3 1.05% No 256 89.51% Top 10 Types of CAIM Acupuncture 64 22.38% *CAIM (General) 26 9.09% Traditional Chinese medicine 20 6.99% α Exercise 10 3.50% α Stem cell therapy 10 3.50% Mindfulness 9 3.15% α Vitamin D 8 2.80% Yoga 8 2.80% Tai Chi 7 2.45% Cannabis and cannabinoids 6 2.10% Turmeric/curcumin 6 2.10% Focus on Health Topic of Condition Yes Neurological and/or neuropsychiatric conditions 26 9.09% Cancer 18 6.30% Analgesia and/or pain in general 14 4.90% COVID-19 13 4.55% Cardiovascular conditions 6 2.10% Diabetes and associated metabolic conditions 6 2.10% Sexual and reproductive health 5 1.75% Neuropathic Pain 4 1.40% Insomnia 3 1.05% Other 41 14.34% No 150 52.45% *BAs which included articles focused on CAIM broadly rather than focusing on a specific therapy within CAIM. α Inclusion of BAs focused on these therapies were discussed with CAIM experts (LSW, JYN) to ensure they fall under the scope of CAIM, and in particular, address the human health context. Table 2: Bibliometric Characteristics of Included BAs on CAIM Literature (n=286) Characteristic Number of Articles Percent of Articles Databases Used in BAs Web of Science 181 63.29% Scopus 60 20.98% PubMed 46 16.08% MEDLINE 21 7.34% Cochrane 20 6.99% CNKI 20 6.99% Embase 19 6.64% Wanfang Data 10 3.50% CBM/SinoMed 9 3.15% PsycINFO 6 2.10% Google Scholar 6 2.10% *Number of Included Documents Mean (Range) 7910.9 (12-797632) N/A Median 869.5 N/A Mode 100 N/A Interquartile Range 2541.75 N/A Type of Bibliometric Technique Top 5 Performance Analysis (n=286) Total publications 279 97.55% Total citations 191 66.78% Impact factor 136 47.55% Average citations 113 39.51% Number of contributing authors 87 30.42% Top 5 Science Mapping (n=228) Co-word analysis 179 62.59% Co-authorship analysis 158 55.24% Co-citation analysis 89 31.12% Citation analysis 82 28.67% Bibliographic coupling 5 1.75% Visualization Techniques VosViewer 111 38.81% CiteSpace 76 26.57% *Information missing for 4 articles Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendices.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5507224","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":386941861,"identity":"cc6f9789-3284-4734-bc98-795f6015ece3","order_by":0,"name":"Henry Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University Hospital Tübingen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Henry","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":386941862,"identity":"21b93aa8-ca70-42f2-b1fe-a470205e8a2a","order_by":1,"name":"Aimun Qadeer Shah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University Hospital Tübingen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Aimun","middleName":"Qadeer","lastName":"Shah","suffix":""},{"id":386941863,"identity":"1d4e0238-1e0c-42f0-af75-94d5eca01399","order_by":2,"name":"Hamas Tariq","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University Hospital Tübingen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hamas","middleName":"","lastName":"Tariq","suffix":""},{"id":386941864,"identity":"4da2077f-10d2-4e8e-ae03-6854c823e53f","order_by":3,"name":"Rayhane Rebaine","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University Hospital Tübingen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rayhane","middleName":"","lastName":"Rebaine","suffix":""},{"id":386941865,"identity":"f8dfc244-8e46-4cc5-9303-2099f98a1b43","order_by":4,"name":"Sarah Ali","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University Hospital Tübingen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sarah","middleName":"","lastName":"Ali","suffix":""},{"id":386941866,"identity":"3e4fb802-0791-4928-ba7d-c47f0c0724f1","order_by":5,"name":"Tenzin Chimi Yehshopa","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University Hospital Tübingen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tenzin","middleName":"Chimi","lastName":"Yehshopa","suffix":""},{"id":386941867,"identity":"b8341003-fe89-458f-ab59-322601aa9f0a","order_by":6,"name":"Nima Karimi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University Hospital Tübingen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nima","middleName":"","lastName":"Karimi","suffix":""},{"id":386941868,"identity":"727fb262-a621-4a66-9683-37c662227683","order_by":7,"name":"Mujeedat Lekuti","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University Hospital Tübingen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mujeedat","middleName":"","lastName":"Lekuti","suffix":""},{"id":386941869,"identity":"602b5151-4342-4ddd-9b5e-8a20a46879e1","order_by":8,"name":"Tisha Parikh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University Hospital Tübingen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tisha","middleName":"","lastName":"Parikh","suffix":""},{"id":386941870,"identity":"21a8c511-0981-44b8-b1cb-59022660ce14","order_by":9,"name":"Mabel Koo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University Hospital Tübingen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mabel","middleName":"","lastName":"Koo","suffix":""},{"id":386941871,"identity":"d3f521e7-79d9-4006-ba94-f01a52715a53","order_by":10,"name":"L. Susan Wieland","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"George Washington University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"L.","middleName":"Susan","lastName":"Wieland","suffix":""},{"id":386941872,"identity":"12032188-1d82-426f-9944-7d1ca6e81885","order_by":11,"name":"David Moher","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ottawa Hospital Research Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"David","middleName":"","lastName":"Moher","suffix":""},{"id":386941873,"identity":"c2e2192c-b3ba-4147-a754-73740397c721","order_by":12,"name":"Holger Cramer","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University Hospital Tübingen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Holger","middleName":"","lastName":"Cramer","suffix":""},{"id":386941874,"identity":"7026e20b-4f58-4c39-95b5-51d035089e59","order_by":13,"name":"Jeremy Y. Ng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Ottawa","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jeremy","middleName":"Y.","lastName":"Ng","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-11-22 23:23:01","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5507224/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5507224/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":73152665,"identity":"4e6b72b6-e565-4a65-b57d-dcb3af8a3cfd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-07 08:40:18","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":78346,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePRISMA Flow Chart Detailing the Study Selection Process (14)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5507224/v1/6ee8c33fa07856a43e64265e.png"},{"id":73151367,"identity":"a7e703c1-9984-4f54-850c-9222647fb06f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-07 08:32:18","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":117525,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe Distribution of the Countries of Included BAs on CAIM Literature (n=286)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5507224/v1/d33a853be5f6a1b1595a48ee.png"},{"id":73312990,"identity":"9f04abcf-cba9-4405-9f21-5da67df35b92","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-08 19:05:18","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":991160,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5507224/v1/31f6191f-9334-4cad-92c1-02058b55adee.pdf"},{"id":73151365,"identity":"6ee4a666-bf80-41b1-9dbc-b78a9b6b612b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-07 08:32:18","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":63044,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendices.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5507224/v1/dd719de0baa8c59adecc887f.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Characteristics of Bibliometric Analyses of the Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Literature: A Scoping Review","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eComplementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) is a complex term referring to three distinct concepts related to the use of non-conventional medicine (1,2). “Complementary medicine” describes non-conventional therapeutic approaches used together with conventional therapies (1). “Alternative medicine” describes non-conventional therapeutic approaches used in replacement of conventional therapies (1). “Integrative medicine” describes the combined use of both conventional and non-conventional therapies in a coordinated manner (1,2). For the purpose of this study, each of these approaches may also incorporate elements of “traditional medicine,” which is the “knowledge, skills and practices based on the theories, beliefs and experiences indigenous to different cultures, used in the maintenance of health and in the prevention, diagnosis, improvement or treatment of physical and mental illness” (3).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCAIM practitioners have continually emphasized a holistic approach to health, considering socio-cultural factors and well-being as an essential part of medical care (2,4). Users of such therapies often perceive CAIM as better at providing individualized, person-centered care compared to mainstream health approaches (5,6). The prevalence of CAIM use is increasing worldwide, and, accordingly, the body of literature on CAIM research has grown immensely, with the steepest increase in CAIM publications observed between the mid-2000s and mid-2010s (7,8). Identifying broad trends in CAIM research literature and exploring specific topics (e.g., acupuncture, aromatherapy) is crucial for understanding the evolving focus of this field and guiding future research and policy efforts to address gaps in evidence and optimize patient care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile some CAIM therapies (e.g., yoga for depressive symptoms (9) or acupuncture for chronic pain (10)) have evidence of safety and efficacy, many other therapies have insufficient evidence on effectiveness or safety (11,12). Furthermore, even when basic effectiveness and safety are established, questions often remain about key characteristics such as intervention dose and implementation or applicability to different patient populations and settings (13, 14, 15).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBibliometric analyses (BAs) can be used to detect such knowledge gaps and to identify research trends that help predict whether these knowledge gaps are likely to be met (16). Conducting a BA involves applying quantitative statistical techniques to bibliometric data (e.g., total number of citations, total number of publications) and can be used for a variety of purposes, such as identifying patterns in a given field of research (16, 17). BA techniques can broadly belong to categories of performance analysis (i.e., techniques measuring contributions of research constituents) or science mapping (i.e., techniques measuring relationships between research constituents) (16, 17). Examples of research constituents include authors, countries, institutions, and topics (14). Performance analysis techniques can further be divided into publication-related metrics (e.g., total number of publications), citation-related metrics (e.g., average citations, total number of citations), and citation-and-publication-related metrics (e.g., h-index, g-index, proportion of cited publications) (16). Science mapping techniques can include methods such as citation analysis, co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, co-word analysis, and co-authorship analysis (16). For instance, co-citation analysis examines the frequency of publications being cited together, which may reveal thematic clusters (16). Further, enrichment techniques of network metrics (i.e., quantitative measures of research constituents’ relative importance), clustering (i.e., grouping of similar objects using clustering algorithms), and visualization (i.e., graphical visualizations of research constituents’ connections) can be employed to enhance understanding the results of science mapping techniques (16). For instance, software like VOSviewer can be used to visualize thematic clusters in co-citation analysis graphically (16).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvantages of BAs include facilitating the examination of large datasets that are not feasible for investigation by manual review (e.g., literature reviews) (16). Further, the relatively low cost and rapidity of conducting BAs allow for replicable methods (16,18). For such reasons, the use of bibliometric techniques across different scientific fields, including CAIM, is becoming increasingly popular (19,20).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo the best of our knowledge, no systematic or scoping reviews have been conducted on BAs of CAIM therapies. A preliminary search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Scopus database revealed no existing systematic or scoping reviews on the topic. A scoping review, which involves mapping the current literature and identifying gaps in research (21), is a more appropriate methodology to summarize the literature on CAIM BAs than a systematic review, which has a narrower focus (22). Synthesizing BAs on CAIM will provide insight into trends, such as the types of CAIM literature typically analyzed from a bibliometric lens, statistical techniques that BAs on CAIM utilize, and, more broadly, where the field of CAIM is headed. While there are some guidelines on how to conduct BAs (16), there is no universal standard or consensus in the literature on what a BA should entail. Accordingly, this review will also improve understanding of how BAs are currently conducted on this topic. Thus, the purpose of this review is to understand the characteristics of BAs of CAIM research literature, which can inform future work within the field.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003ch2\u003eApproach\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted using established scoping review methods outlined in Chapter 11 of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis (23). A previously published protocol describes the objective, eligibility criteria, and proposed methods of this study (24). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist was also completed. The study protocol was registered and made accessible via the Open Science Framework (OSF) before participant recruitment began. OSF was also used to share study materials and raw data, which can be found at:\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JSQWY.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eInclusion criteria\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe only eligible study design was bibliometric analyses (encompassing terms for “bibliometric analysis”, “scientometric analysis”, and “citation analysis”), or articles that include both a bibliometric analysis and another study design (e.g., bibliometric analysis and systematic review) published in peer-reviewed journals. All included BAs focused on one or more CAIM therapies, as defined by a published operational definition of CAIM (25). This operational definition was created using a systematic search of four peer-reviewed or other quality-assessed resource types: 1) peer-reviewed articles from seven major bibliographic databases, 2) “Aims and Scope” webpages of peer-reviewed CAIM journals, 3) entries containing CAIM therapies in highly accessed online encyclopedias, and 4) highly ranked websites resulting from Health On the Net Code of Conduct (HONcode) searches (25). To date, this operational definition includes the greatest number of evidence sources and is the only one that captures the concept of “integrative medicine”, alongside “complementary medicine” and “alternative medicine” (2, 25).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGray literature (i.e., difficult to find literature) sources were excluded as BA studies are unlikely to be found outside of traditional academic publishing channels. Conference abstracts and study protocols were also excluded as they were unlikely to contain adequate information required to describe the characteristics of BAs on CAIM literature. Finally, all non-English publications were excluded due to language constraints of the authors.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eSearch Strategy\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe following databases were searched from inception to the date of the search execution on January 5, 2023: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and AMED (accessed via the OVID research platform), as well as CINAHL (accessed via EBSCOhost), Scopus, and Web of Science. The search strategy included a comprehensive search string of CAIM terms (26) encompassing 604 distinct therapies described previously in an operational definition of CAIM (25). The comprehensive search string of CAIM (26) was combined with search terms for BAs (e.g., bibliometric analysis, statistical bibliography, citation analysis). Relevant scientific names and/or synonyms were added as a term (i.e., keyword, phrase), alongside relevant Boolean operators. The search strategy, including all identified keywords and equivalent index terms, was also adapted for each included database. The full search strategy for each database has been made available on OSF at\u0026nbsp;https://osf.io/a723x.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eSources of Evidence Screening and Selection\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing the search, citations were collated, exported into Covidence software (27), and duplicates removed. Title/abstract followed by full-text screenings were conducted independently and in duplicate on Covidence. Prior to each screening stage, pilot screening of twenty titles/abstracts and ten full texts was completed (HL, AQS) and discrepancies were discussed in consultation with JYN to ensure consistency. Reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage were also recorded. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion with three authors (HL, AQS, JYN). All records screened at the title and abstract stage have been made available on OSF (https://osf.io/bca3f), as well as records of conflicts at the full-text stage and how they were resolved (https://osf.io/2ny7b).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Extraction\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data extraction form was developed in two stages and was informed by Donthu et al.’s (16)\u0026nbsp;overview on how to conduct a bibliometric analysis. This is a highly cited guideline that is recognized as an effective resource for conducting BAs with methodological rigour. The use of this guideline also allowed us to standardize our data extraction process, facilitating the identification and easy labelling of key variables, metrics, and analytical techniques relevant to BA studies. In stage one, HL and AQS selected ten articles at random that met the inclusion criteria from a preliminary search of CAIM and BA search terms on Scopus and used the form to independently extract information. HL and AQS then met to resolve discrepancies, before meeting with JYN to discuss adaptations to the form. In stage two, HL and AQS identified the ten most highly cited articles that met the inclusion criteria from a preliminary search on Scopus and independently extracted information from the articles using the latest version of the data extraction form. Another meeting was held between HL and AQS, and then with JYN, to discuss and approve the latest version of the extraction form.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe following information was extracted using Excel software: title, author, year, country, study aim, secondary study design (if applicable), type of CAIM(s), health condition or population addressed, main findings, conclusions, and limitations. Additionally, bibliometric details were summarized, including databases searched, type of methodology (performance analysis vs. science mapping), number of studies included, metrics used, reporting method, visualization software, and alignment with the bibliometric analysis guidelines from Donthu et al. (16).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo ensure consistency and quality, a pilot step was completed where all reviewers (HT, RR, SA, TP, TCY, NK, ML, MK) extracted information from the same five articles. A meeting was held between HL and AQS to review the extractions, resolve discrepancies, and provide feedback. Upon completion of the pilot step, reviewers (HT, RR, SA, TP, TCY, NK, ML, MK) were divided equally into two teams led by HL and AQS. Teams were further divided into pairs of two reviewers to complete independent and duplicate data extraction of the same set of bibliometric full texts. These duplicate extractions were resolved between pairs and reviewed by HL and AQS to ensure consistency. Any conflicts that could not be resolved were discussed with JYN. The complete data extraction table of all included articles has been made available on OSF (https://osf.io/acyr5).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of the scoping review were summarized as frequencies and other descriptive statistics including mean, median, mode, and interquartile range. \u0026nbsp;Data were also presented in table and figure format. Of note, the types of CAIMs that were included in the BAs were first categorized using an operational definition list of CAIM therapies adopted by the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field (28). This operational definition is an all-inclusive list (26), such that not every included therapy (e.g., stem cell therapy) is necessarily always used as a CAIM therapy. Where applicable, the CAIMs were categorized as specifically as possible rather than as part of broad, enumerated therapies (e.g., acupuncture was counted as its own category rather than included in the count for Traditional Chinese Medicine). However, articles that focused on multiple CAIM therapies were counted as part of multiple categories (e.g., ‘bee venom acupuncture’ was categorized as both apitherapy and acupuncture). Then, CAIM therapies were further described according to the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) categories for CAIM (29) which include whole medical systems, biologically-based practices, mind-body therapies, manipulative and body-based practices, and energy healing. Specifically, when analyzing the mean, median, and mode of the total number of performance analysis metrics used in each BA, we only assigned values for metrics or techniques that were described in Donthu et al.’s (2021) guidance. This was due to the large variation in metrics calculated across different BAs, and potentially different interpretations of what may constitute a ‘distinct’ metric.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003ch2\u003eSearch Results\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA total of 4461 records were identified through database searching, and, after duplicate deletion, 3090 records were screened by title and abstract. After excluding 2560 in the title and abstract screening phase, 527 records were screened by full-text, of which 286 articles were ultimately included. \u003cstrong\u003eFigure 1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eprovides an overview of the selection process. The complete reference list of all included articles is available in \u003cstrong\u003eSupplementary File 1\u003c/strong\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eGeneral Article Characteristics\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe general characteristics of the included articles are shown in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e. Included studies were published between 1995 and 2023, with three-quarters (74.83%; n=214) published in the last 5 years (2019-2023). Studies were conducted in 36 countries, as shown in\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Figure 2\u003c/strong\u003e, with the most represented countries being China (50.00%; n=143), India (4.90%; n=14), Brazil (4.55%; n=13), the United States (4.55%; n=13), and South Korea (4.20%; n=12). Although all included articles were considered to be BAs, there was variation in how articles self-described their study design. Most explicitly described themselves as a “bibliometric analysis” (77.97%; n=223) or a similar descriptor such as “bibliometric profile,” “bibliometric review,” or “bibliometric survey” (6.99%; n=20). Other labels involved descriptors associated with “visualization” (e.g., visual science mapping, network visualization) (9.79%; n=28). Some also described their study as a “scientometric analysis” (i.e., studies employing statistical methods to analyze bibliographic data of scientific publications) (4.90%; n=14) or related terms such as “scientometric review” or “scientometric assessment” (4.20%; n=12). A minority of studies also incorporated secondary study designs (10.49%; n=30), including systematic reviews (3.85%; n=11), literature reviews (2.45%; n=7), and other review designs (e.g., short review, critical review, review) (2.45%; n=7).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCAIM Characteristics\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere were several types of CAIMs that the included BA articles focused on, as seen in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e. A completed data extraction form is available on OSF (https://osf.io/urmnj). These were further classified as part of five general categories of CAIM that are described by the NCI: whole medical systems (e.g., traditional Chinese Medicine, naturopathy) (n=94), biologically-based practices (e.g., curcumin, St. John’s wort) (n=85), mind-body therapies (e.g., mindfulness, meditation) (n=42), and manipulative and body-based practices (e.g., chiropractic, massage) (n=7). Five articles focused on CAIMs that encompassed two NCI categories. These included mind-body therapies and whole medical systems (n=2), biologically-based practices and whole medical systems (n=1), manipulative and body-based practices and whole medical systems (n=1), and mind-body therapies and manipulative and body-based practices (n=1). Notably, there were no bibliometric studies on energy healing as a type of CAIM therapy (e.g., reiki, therapeutic touch). Further, 26 studies focused on CAIM in general, and another 27 studies might not be universally recognized as CAIM and could not be easily categorized (e.g., stem cell therapies).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eTarget Health Topic or Condition\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs seen in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e, over half of the included bibliometric analyses were not focused on CAIM in relation to a specific health condition or topic (52.45%; n=150). The remaining articles focused on topics of neurological and/or neuropsychiatric disorders (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease, depression, epilepsy) (9.09%; n=26), cancer (6.29%; n=18), analgesia and/or pain broadly (4.90%; n=14), COVID-19 (4.55%; n=13), cardiovascular conditions (2.0%; n=6), diabetes and associated metabolic conditions (2.10%; n=6), sexual and reproductive health (1.75%; n=5), neuropathic pain (1.40%; n=4), insomnia (1.05%; n=3) among others.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eSources of Bibliometric Data\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWeb of Science (WoS) was the most commonly used source of retrieving bibliometric data (63.29%; n=181), followed by Scopus (20.98%; n=60), PubMed (16.08%; n=46), MEDLINE (7.34%; n=21), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (6.99%; n=20), and EMBASE (6.64%; n=19). Regionally focused platforms, such as the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (6.99%; n=20), Wanfang Data (3.50%; n=10), China Biomedical Literature (CBM), and Indian MEDLARS (IndMED) (1.0%; n=3), were less frequently accessed. Google Scholar was occasionally used (2.1%; n=6) for bibliometric studies. The majority of studies used only one source, while about a quarter of BA’s reported using two or more sources of bibliometric data (24.48%; n=70).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eThe Number of Included Documents in BAs\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere was a large range in the number of documents that each BA of CAIM literature included, between 12 to 797,632 documents. The mean, median, and mode values of the number of documents analyzed were 7,910.9, 869.5, and 100, respectively. The interquartile range was 2541.75. Four studies did not specify the number of documents analyzed.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003ePerformance Analysis Techniques\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll included articles used performance analysis metrics in their BA of CAIM literature. The two most commonly calculated performance analysis metrics employed were metrics of total publications (97.55%; n=279) and total citations (66.78%; n=191). This was followed by average citations (39.51%; n=113), number of contributing authors (30.42%; n=87), h-index (23.78%; n=68), and sole-authored publications (8.39%; n=24). The total number of Donthu-aligned metrics employed in BAs ranged from 1 to 9, and the mean, median, mode, and interquartile range values of the number of metrics used were 2.9, 3, 1, and 2, respectively. Other very commonly used metrics, which were not described in Donthu et al.’s guidance on BAs, included journal impact factor (47.55%; n=136), citation burst strength (26.92%; n=77), and journal quartile rank (9.79%; n=28).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eScience Mapping Techniques\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe majority of included articles (77.97%; n=223) also used science mapping metrics in their BA of CAIM literature. Of these science mapping techniques, co-word analysis (62.59%; n=179) and co-authorship analysis (55.24%; n=158) were the most frequently conducted, followed by co-citation analyses (31.12%; n=89) and citation analyses (28.67%; n=8299). Bibliographic coupling (1.75%; n=5) was rarely employed. The mean, median, mode, and interquartile range values of the number of science mapping techniques employed were 2.1, 2, 3, and 3, respectively. \u0026nbsp;Science mapping techniques were most often presented using visualization softwares such VOSviewer (38.81%; n=111) and CiteSpace (26.57%; n=76).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo our knowledge, this is the first scoping review that systematically examines the characteristics of BAs on CAIM literature. Overall, our findings highlight that an increasing number of researchers, particularly in the last 5 years, have been employing BA methodology to analyze CAIM literature. A large number of these studies are concentrated on therapies such as acupuncture, and other Traditional Chinese Medicine practices. This review also identifies considerable methodological variability across BAs in CAIM, such as diversity in the number of documents analyzed, the number and type of databases used, the number and types of metrics used, and the ways in which the data are presented.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eComparative Literature\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe increasing use of bibliometrics globally (30) is mirrored in the CAIM literature, where we have captured a notable surge in the number of BAs on the topic in the last five years. This rise underscores the growing recognition of bibliometrics as a valuable tool for mapping research trends and evaluating scientific output on a particular topic (31).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur review shows how bibliometrics can illuminate potential research areas, identify influential authors, and reveal the impact of key studies, providing a comprehensive understanding of developments in the CAIM field. Specifically, performance analysis metrics quantify research output and influence, enhancing understanding of research trends and impact (16). Science mapping techniques visualize the intellectual structure and development of research fields, providing insights into how key topics evolve and relations between studies (16). In our review, it is notable that 100% of the included studies employed performance analysis metrics, which underscores their fundamental role in evaluating research productivity and impact. Performance analysis metrics are essential for providing a quantitative basis for assessing research contributions (16, 32, 33). This ubiquity reflects their perceived importance and ease of application in bibliometric studies. However, while these basic metrics provide valuable information about the volume and visibility of research, they might offer only a partial view of the quality and impact of scholarly work. Performance analysis metrics like the h-index may offer a more nuanced picture of research productivity (35), but were far less commonly used among the examined BAs. Performance analysis alone may not account for all aspects of research impact, such as the influence of specific articles on the field or relationships between research constituents, which science mapping can offer. While a large majority of examined BA (n=228) utilized science mapping techniques, not all studies included these methods. The choice to employ science mapping may be influenced by several factors, including the complexity and resource demands associated with these techniques (16, 32, 33).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, this review also echoes concerns regarding the lack of standardized variables used across bibliometric studies in CAIM (17, 34). Our review shows significant variability in the methodologies employed by different studies, particularly concerning the metrics used and the scope of data analyzed. For instance, some bibliometric analyses focused on relatively small subsets of documents, while others encompassed large-scale datasets, analyzing hundreds of thousands of publications. Similarly, the number of databases consulted varied widely—from a single database to multiple sources. This variability highlights the absence of a universally accepted standard or formal evaluation framework for bibliometric analyses, which complicates the interpretation and comparison of results across studies. A promising step towards addressing these concerns is the development of the Guidance List for the repOrting of Bibliometric AnaLyses (GLOBAL) (35). The GLOBAL initiative aims to provide minimum guidelines for the reporting of bibliometric analyses (35). By creating a consensus-based framework for reporting, GLOBAL will help ensure that bibliometric methods are applied consistently and that results can be more reliably interpreted and compared across studies (35, 36). The project, informed by a scoping review of bibliometric reporting recommendations (37), is currently in its Delphi process to refine a 32-item checklist. This will likely help to promote transparency, robustness, and completeness in the reporting of BAs (36, 38, 39, 40).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConcerns have especially been raised over the increasing conduct of BAs outside the information and library sciences (ILS) field, and a potential lack of quality control and research standards (33). While the number of WoS-indexed bibliometric studies published in ILS journals is lower than the number published in non-ILS journals, non-ILS articles have a lower average rate of citations per article (41). Ellegaard \u0026amp; Wallin posited there exists “a slower awareness of bibliometric methods in the community outside the information professionals” (41). The absence of standardized variables contributes to inconsistencies in the reported findings and limits the generalizability of bibliometric insights. González‑Alcaide had further examined the extent to which non-ILS BAs were theoretically grounded in the bibliometric sciences (42). As compared to ILS BAs, a lower proportion of bibliometric studies in the life sciences and biomedicine (LSB) field made reference to models (11.42% vs 13.63%), theories (2.39% vs 4.92%), or laws (1.38% vs 3.29%) (33).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn additional consideration is that the majority of included BAs on CAIM literature relied on data from Web of Science, a product of Clarivate Analysis (43). This finding draws attention to the central role that Clarivate Analytics has in shaping methodological standards for bibliometric analyses. The heavy reliance on a single data source raises questions about the standardization and uniformity of bibliometric methodologies. While Web of Science offers comprehensive coverage and well-established metrics, the reliance on this single database suggests a potential bias towards research sources and metrics indexed to this database, which may not fully represent the diversity of CAIM research (44, 45, 46). Further, not all researchers or institutions have access to WoS due to its subscription-based model, which may skew research evaluations (47, 48) and impact the fairness of bibliometric assessments (49).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis lack of standardization of BAs also complicates the comparison of results across studies, as differences in methodology can lead to varying conclusions about the state and development of research trends. The lack of a formal evaluation framework for bibliometric analyses means that researchers have significant flexibility in choosing their methods, which can lead to variability in the quality and reliability of the results. This variability can diminish the reproducibility and robustness of bibliometric studies, as different approaches may yield inconsistent findings. Standardization would address these issues by establishing clear guidelines for the selection and application of metrics, ensuring that analyses are conducted consistently and comparably. Such standardization could enhance the credibility of bibliometric studies and improve their utility for researchers, policymakers, and funding agencies. This would be particularly valuable in interdisciplinary research areas like CAIM, where diverse methodologies and research outputs need to be integrated to inform practice and policy effectively. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eImplications and Future Directions\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe insights gained from this review have important implications for the field of bibliometrics in the context of CAIM literature and beyond. Firstly, the predominance of performance analysis metrics such as total publications or total citations, while beneficial for assessing research output and impact, may provide an incomplete picture of the quality and relevance of CAIM research. Future bibliometric studies should incorporate a broader range of metrics to conduct evaluations of research impact, such as g-, h-, and i-indices. The findings also point to a need for more inclusive and varied data sources to ensure comprehensive evaluations of research topics. Finally the variability observed in the conduct of BAs draws attention to a need for greater standardization and methodological rigour in the field, such as a formal evaluation framework, in order to enhance the reproducibility and reliability of bibliometric assessments.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eStrengths and Limitations\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStrengths of this study include adherence to the JBI framework for scoping reviews (20), as well as the use of a comprehensive systematic search strategy across several bibliographic databases, which allowed us to identify a large number of eligible articles. Further, interpretation of the findings was strengthened by the fact that a total of eight authors extracted articles in duplicate, and all extractions were then reviewed by a third reviewer. However, there are some limitations that must be acknowledged. Firstly, we included studies that were only written in the English language, and accordingly, we might be missing important international work. This is particularly relevant because CAIM may be practiced more frequently in some non-English speaking regions of the world, such as traditional Chinese medicine in China, and we were not able to assess this literature. However, this issue is mitigated to an extent by the fact that we included BAs that included publications in all languages. Another limitation is that our eligibility criteria included any BAs that focused on CAIMs which were part of the comprehensive list adopted by the Cochrane Complementary Medicine group (25, 26). This is considered to be an all-inclusive list, where not all items listed are necessarily always applied in a CAIM context (e.g., stem cell therapy, physical therapy, photodynamic therapy). As such, we may have included some BAs that were focused on topics that were part of this list, but that may not have been intended to be considered as ‘CAIMs.’ This limitation was addressed through our consultation with CAIM experts (LSW, JYN) to ensure that we made well-informed and careful decisions on which BAs were appropriately aligned with our inclusion criteria, particularly focusing on topics which were perceived to be reasonably applicable within a human health context.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of BAs on CAIM literature. The substantial increase in BAs over the last five years indicates growing interest in understanding and evaluating the impact of CAIM research through quantitative measures. The predominance of performance analysis techniques and science mapping techniques such as \u0026lsquo;total publications\u0026rsquo; or \u0026lsquo;co-word\u0026rsquo; analysis underscores their importance to assess research productivity and impact. However, the variability in the way that BAs were conducted, including differences in data sources and metrics, points to a need for greater standardization and methodological rigour.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"List Of Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eBA: bibliometric analysis \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCAIM: complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGLOBAL: Guidance List for the repOrting of Bibliometric AnaLyses \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHONcode: Health on the Net Code of Conduct \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eILS: information and library sciences \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJBI: Joanna Briggs Institute \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNCI: National Cancer Institute\u0026rsquo;s \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNIH: National Institute of Health \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOSF: Open Science Framework \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePRISMA-ScR: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval and Consent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study involved a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature only; it did not require ethics approval or consent to participate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for Publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors consent to this manuscript\u0026rsquo;s publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of Data and Materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll relevant data are included in this manuscript or posted on the Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JSQWY\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was unfunded.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHL:\u0026nbsp;collected and analysed data, co-drafted the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAQS:\u0026nbsp;collected and analysed data, co-drafted the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHT: assisted with\u0026nbsp;the collection and analysis of data, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRR: assisted with\u0026nbsp;the collection and analysis of data, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSA: assisted with\u0026nbsp;the collection and analysis of data, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTCY: assisted with\u0026nbsp;the collection and analysis of data, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNK: assisted with\u0026nbsp;the collection and analysis of data, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eML: assisted with\u0026nbsp;the collection and analysis of data, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTP: assisted with\u0026nbsp;the collection and analysis of data, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMK: assisted with\u0026nbsp;the collection and analysis of data, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLSW: provided methodological guidance, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDM: provided methodological guidance, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHC: provided methodological guidance, made critical revisions to the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJYN:\u0026nbsp;designed and conceptualized the study, collected and analysed data, drafted the manuscript, and gave final approval of the version to be published.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe gratefully acknowledge Khadija Farooq for her support in the data extraction process.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNational Center for Complementary and Integrative Health [Internet]. Complementary, Alternative, or Integrative Health: What\u0026rsquo;s In a Name? Available from: https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/complementary-alternative-or-integrative-health-whats-in-a-name\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNg JY, Boon HS, Thompson AK, Whitehead CR. Making sense of \u0026ldquo;alternative\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;complementary\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;unconventional\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;integrative\u0026rdquo; medicine: exploring the terms and meanings through a textual analysis. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 May 20;16:134.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization Regional Office for Africa [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Apr 5]. Traditional Medicine. Available from: https://www.afro.who.int/health-topics/traditional-medicine\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBradbury J, Avila C, Grace S. Practice-Based Research in Complementary Medicine: Could N-of-1 Trials Become the New Gold Standard? Healthcare. 2020 Mar;8(1):15.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBishop FL, Yardley L, Lewith GT. Treat or Treatment: A Qualitative Study Analyzing Patients\u0026rsquo; Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Am J Public Health. 2008 Sep;98(9):1700\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDodds S, Bulmer S, Murphy A. Consumer Value in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Health Care Services. Australas Mark J. 2014 Aug 1;22(3):218\u0026ndash;29.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNg JY. Insight into the characteristics of research published in traditional, complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine journals: a bibliometric analysis. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2021 Jul 1;21(1):185.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTangkiatkumjai M, Boardman H, Walker DM. Potential factors that influence usage of complementary and alternative medicine worldwide: a systematic review. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2020 Nov 23;20(1):363.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCramer H, Lauche R, Langhorst J, Dobos G. Yoga for Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Depress Anxiety. 2013;30(11):1068\u0026ndash;83.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVickers AJ, Vertosick EA, Lewith G, MacPherson H, Foster NE, Sherman KJ, Irnich D, Witt CM, Linde K, Acupuncture Trialists\u0026apos; Collaboration. Acupuncture for chronic pain: update of an individual patient data meta-analysis. The journal of pain. 2018 May 1;19(5):455-74.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePratt M, Wieland S, Ahmadzai N, Butler C, Wolfe D, Pussagoda K, et al. A scoping review of network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions. Syst Rev. 2020 Apr 30;9(1):97.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEkor M. The growing use of herbal medicines: issues relating to adverse reactions and challenges in monitoring safety. Front Pharmacol [Internet]. 2014 Jan 10 [cited 2024 Apr 5];4. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2013.00177/full\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarnes J. Quality, efficacy and safety of complementary medicines: fashions, facts and the future. Part II: Efficacy and safety. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;55(4):331\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNg JY, Lee MS, Liu J, Steel A, Wieland LS, Witt CM, et al. How can meta-research be used to evaluate and improve the quality of research in the field of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine? Integr Med Res. 2024. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2024.101068\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRaja M, Cramer H, Lee MS, Wieland LS, Ng JY. Addressing the challenges of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine research: An international perspective and proposed strategies moving forward. Forthcoming in Perspectives on Integrative Medicine. 2024. Available from: https://doi.org/10.56986/pim.2024.06.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDonthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, Pandey N, Lim WM. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J Bus Res. 2021 Sep 1;133:285\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHood WW, Wilson CS. The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics. 2001 Oct;52:291-314. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017919924342\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRowlands I. What are we measuring? Refocusing on some fundamentals in the age of desktop bibliometrics. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2018 Apr 1;365(8):fny059.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEllegaard O, Wallin JA. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics. 2015 Dec 1;105(3):1809\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGonz\u0026aacute;lez-Alcaide G. Bibliometric studies outside the information science and library science field: uncontainable or uncontrollable? Scientometrics. 2021 Aug 1;126(8):6837\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., \u0026amp; Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth, 18(10), 2119-2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMunn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 19;18(1):143.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Chapter 11. JBI; 2020. p. 2119-2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNg JY, Liu H, Shah AQ, Wieland LS, Moher D. Characteristics of bibliometric analyses of the complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine literature: A scoping review protocol. J Integr Med. 2024;22(1):44-50. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.130326.2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNg JY, Dhawan T, Dogadova E, Taghi-Zada Z, Vacca A, Wieland LS, et al. Operational definition of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine derived from a systematic search. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2022;22(1):104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-022-03556-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNg JY, Dhawan T, Dogadova E, Taghi-Zada Z, Vacca A, Fajardo RG, et al. A comprehensive search string informed by an operational definition of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine for systematic bibliographic database search strategies. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2022;22(1):200. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-022-03683-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCovidence systematic review software. Veritas Health Innovation; Melbourne, Australia. Available from: www.covidence.org\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCochrane Complementary Medicine Group. Operational Definition of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine: The Cochrane Collaboration 2022. 2022 Available from: https://cam.cochrane.org/operational-definition-complementary-medicine \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNational Cancer Institute. Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2024. Available from: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMokhnacheva YV, Tsvetkova VA. Development of bibliometrics as a scientific field. Scientific and Technical Information Processing. 2020 Jul;47:158-63. https://doi.org/10.3103/S014768822003003X\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFassin Y, Rousseau R. Use of bibliometrics-related terms, their evolution, and the growth of metrics in science. Journal of Scientometric Research. 2023 Sep 4;12(2):509-19. https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.12.2.048\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNoyons ECM, Moed HF, Van Raan AFJ. Integrating research performance analysis and science mapping. Scientometrics. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02459614\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCobo MJ, L\u0026oacute;pez-Herrera AG, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F. Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2011;62(7):1382-1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJappe A. Professional standards in bibliometric research evaluation? A meta-evaluation of European assessment practice 2005\u0026ndash;2019. PloS one. 2020 Apr 20;15(4):e0231735. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231735\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNg JY, Haustein S, Ebrahimzadeh S, Chen C, Sabe M, Solmi M, Moher D. Guidance List for repOrting Bibliometric AnaLyses (GLOBAL): A Research Protocol. Available from: https://osf.io/nvu6w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoher D. Reporting research results: a moral obligation for all researchers. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. 2007 May 1;54(5):331. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03022653\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNg JY, Liu H, Masood M, Syed N, Stephen D, Ayala AP, Sab\u0026eacute; M, Solmi M, Waltman L, Haustein, S, Moher, D. Guidance for the Reporting of Bibliometric Analyses: A Scoping Review. medRxiv. 2024:2024.08.26.24312538. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.26.24312538\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBornmann L, Bowman BF, Bauer J, Marx W, Schier H, Palzenberger M. Bibliometric standards for evaluating research institutes in the natural sciences. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9445.003.0015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGagnier JJ, Kienle G, Altman DG, Moher D, Sox H, Riley D. The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. Global advances in health and medicine. 2013 Sep;2(5):38-43. https://doi.org/10.7453/gahmj.2013.008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS medicine. 2010 Feb 16;7(2):e1000217. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCostas R, Bordons M. The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of informetrics. 2007 Jul 1;1(3):193-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.02.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJonkers K, Derrick GE. The bibliometric bandwagon: Characteristics of bibliometric articles outside the field literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2012 Apr;63(4):829-36. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22620\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEllegaard O, Wallin JA. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?. Scientometrics. 2015 Dec;105:1809-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGonz\u0026aacute;lez-Alcaide G. Bibliometric studies outside the information science and library science field: uncontainable or uncontrollable?. Scientometrics. 2021 Aug;126(8):6837-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04061-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJappe A. Professional standards in bibliometric research evaluation? A meta-evaluation of European assessment practice 2005\u0026ndash;2019. PloS one. 2020 Apr 20;15(4):e0231735. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231735\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGingras Y, Rousseau R. Web of Science and the journal impact factor: A systematic review of the risks and limitations. Scientometrics. 2018;115(3):1017-37. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2752-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarzing AW, van der Wal R. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Eur Sci Edit. 2009;35(4):74-9. doi: 10.1080/01419990903259646.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Leeuwen TN, Moed HF. The bibliometric effects of the subscription-based access model on research evaluation. J Informetr. 2009;3(2):137-45. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2008.10.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eB\u0026ouml;rner K, Wylie B. The role of bibliometric indicators in assessing research impact: A review of common pitfalls and recommendations. Nat Rev Phys. 2020;2(1):17-28. doi: 10.1038/s42254-019-0009-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eGeneral Characteristics of Included Bibliometric Analyses (n=286)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCharacteristic\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNumber of Articles\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePercent of Articles\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eYear of Publication\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 1995-1999\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.40%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;2000-2004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.40%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 2005-2009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.40%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;2010-2014\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.64%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; 2015-2019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.98%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;2020-2023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e195\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68.18%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTop 5 Countries of Publication\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; China\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.00%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;India\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.90%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Brazil\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.55%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;United States\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.55%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; South Korea\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.20%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSelf-Described Study Design\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Bibliometric analysis and/or\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;related bibliometric terms\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e239\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e83.57%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Visualization analysis and/or\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;related visualization terms\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.79%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Scientometric Analysis and/or \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;related scientometric terms\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.74%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSecondary Study Design\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Yes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.49%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Systematic review\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.85%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Literature review\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.45%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Scoping review\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.35%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Meta-analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.35%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Other review\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.45%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Other design\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.05%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;No\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e256\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e89.51%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTop 10 Types of CAIM\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Acupuncture\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.38%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;*CAIM (General)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.09%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Traditional Chinese medicine\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.99%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/sup\u003eExercise\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.50%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/sup\u003eStem cell therapy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.50%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Mindfulness\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.15%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003csup\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/sup\u003eVitamin D\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.80%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Yoga\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.80%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Tai Chi\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.45%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Cannabis and cannabinoids\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.10%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Turmeric/curcumin\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.10%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFocus on Health Topic of Condition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Yes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Neurological and/or\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;neuropsychiatric conditions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.09%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Cancer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.30%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Analgesia and/or pain in\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;general\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.90%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;COVID-19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.55%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Cardiovascular conditions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.10%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Diabetes and associated\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;metabolic conditions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.10%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Sexual and reproductive\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;health\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.75%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Neuropathic Pain\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.40%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Insomnia\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.05%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Other\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.34%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 47px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; No\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e150\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.45%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*BAs which included articles focused on CAIM broadly rather than focusing on a specific therapy within CAIM.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/sup\u003eInclusion of BAs focused on these therapies were discussed with CAIM experts (LSW, JYN) to ensure they fall under the scope of CAIM, and in particular, address the human health context.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2:\u003c/strong\u003e Bibliometric Characteristics of Included BAs on CAIM Literature (n=286)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCharacteristic\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNumber of Articles\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePercent of Articles\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDatabases Used in BAs\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Web of Science\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e181\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63.29%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Scopus\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.98%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; PubMed\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.08%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;MEDLINE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.34%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Cochrane\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.99%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;CNKI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.99%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Embase\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.64%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Wanfang Data\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.50%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; CBM/SinoMed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.15%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;PsycINFO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.10%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Google Scholar\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.10%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e*Number of Included Documents\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Mean (Range)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7910.9 (12-797632)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN/A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Median\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e869.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN/A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Mode\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN/A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Interquartile Range\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2541.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN/A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eType of Bibliometric Technique\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Top 5 Performance Analysis (n=286)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Total publications\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e279\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97.55%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Total citations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e191\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66.78%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Impact factor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e136\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47.55%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Average citations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e113\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.51%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Number of contributing authors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.42%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Top 5 Science Mapping (n=228)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Co-word analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e179\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62.59%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Co-authorship analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e158\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55.24%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Co-citation analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.12%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Citation analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.67%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Bibliographic coupling\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.75%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVisualization Techniques\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;VosViewer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e111\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.81%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;CiteSpace\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 27px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.57%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e*Information missing for 4 articles\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5507224/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5507224/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIntroduction: \u003c/strong\u003eResearch on complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) continues to grow. Bibliometric analyses (BAs) are valuable to assess research trends, identify gaps, and understand the evolution of a body of literature, yet there are no systematic or scoping reviews on how these BAs are conducted. This scoping review aimed to systematically review and synthesize BAs on CAIM literature to inform and guide future bibliometric studies in this field and beyond.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods: \u003c/strong\u003eA scoping review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL Scopus, and Web of Science in January 2023. Eligible articles were BAs of CAIM literature. Screening and data extraction were completed independently and in duplicate by at least two reviewers, with findings summarized descriptively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults: \u003c/strong\u003eThe review included 286 articles published between 1995 and 2023, with approximately 75% published in the last five years. Studies were conducted in 36 countries, with China (50%) leading in contributions. All articles used performance analysis techniques, while 80% also used science-mapping techniques. The most commonly used performance analysis metrics were ‘total publications’ (93%) and ‘total citations’ (60%). Co-word (69%) and co-authorship (62%) analysis were the most common science mapping techniques. VOSviewer and CiteSpace were the predominant visualization software employed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions: \u003c/strong\u003eThis review demonstrates large methodological diversity in the conduct of CAIM bibliometrics, highlighting a need for standardized practices. Future research should focus on developing uniform methodologies and incorporating diverse metrics and alternative data sources to enhance analysis reliability.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Characteristics of Bibliometric Analyses of the Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Literature: A Scoping Review","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-01-07 08:32:14","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5507224/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"d26e7c12-5839-46e8-b498-af7b568a03e6","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 7th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":41233557,"name":"Health sciences/Medical research"},{"id":41233558,"name":"Health sciences/Health care/Health policy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-01-08T18:56:13+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-01-07 08:32:14","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5507224","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5507224","identity":"rs-5507224","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}