Methodological approaches and reporting guidance for bibliometric analyses in the health sciences: an umbrella review protocol
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54103/dn/30886Keywords:
nurse, methodology, umbrello review, epistemiology, bibliometric, Quality indicators, Umbrella Review, Research Methodology, Reporting Guidelines, Bibliometric Analysis, Health SciencesAbstract
BACKGROUND: Bibliometric analyses are increasingly used in the health sciences to describe research landscapes, map scientific structures, and support evaluative claims. However, results are sensitive to methodological choices (e.g., database coverage, inclusion criteria, preprocessing, and analytic parameters), and reporting is often incomplete, limiting transparency, reproducibility, and responsible interpretation of indicators.
OBJECTIVE: This umbrella review will synthesize evidence syntheses on bibliometric methodology in the health sciences to (i) map recommended methods, tools, workflows, and reporting guidance, and (ii) summarize how syntheses explicitly frame the interpretation of bibliometric indicators, including limitations and recommended safeguards.
METHODS: Following Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for umbrella reviews, we will include evidence syntheses (systematic reviews, scoping reviews with systematic methods, umbrella reviews, and mapping reviews) that address bibliometric methods and/or reporting recommendations relevant to the health sciences. Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus, supplemented by targeted grey literature searching and screening of reference lists and forward citations. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data using a piloted form, and critically appraise methodological quality using the JBI checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses. Findings will be presented as (1) a descriptive methodological map (methods, data sources, preprocessing, tools, parameters, reporting items) and (2) a framework-based thematic synthesis of explicitly reported interpretive framing, limitations, potential biases, and safeguards for responsible use of indicators.
EXPECTED OUTCOMES: The review will provide consolidated, actionable guidance to improve reporting completeness, reproducibility, and responsible interpretation of bibliometric evidence in the health sciences.
Downloads
References
1. Donthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, Pandey N, Lim WM. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J Bus Res. 2021;133:285–296. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
2. Aria M, Cuccurullo C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Informetr. 2017;11(4):959–975. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
3. van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2010;84(2):523–538. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
4. Mongeon P, Paul-Hus A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics. 2016;106(1):213–228. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
5. Baas J, Schotten M, Plume AM, Côté G, Karimi R. Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quant Sci Stud. 2020;1(1):377–386. doi:10.1162/qss_a_00019
6. Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, de Rijcke S, Rafols I. Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature. 2015;520(7548):429–431. doi:10.1038/520429a
7. Hoppeler H. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. J Exp Biol. 2013;216(12):2163–2164. doi:10.1242/jeb.090779
8. Wilsdon J, Allen L, Belfiore E, Campbell P, Curry S, Hill S, et al. The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. London: Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE); 2015 Jul. Available from: https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/RE-151221-TheMetricTideFullReport2015.pdf
9. Waltman L. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. J Informetr. 2016;10(2):365–391. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007
10. Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):132–140. doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055
11. Joanna Briggs Institute. 9.2 Development of an umbrella review protocol. In: JBI manual for evidence synthesis [Internet]. 2025 May 7 [cited 2026 Feb 3]. Available from: https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/355829749/9.2+Development+of+an+Umbrella+review+protocol
12. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
13. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
14. Pieper D, Antoine S-L, Mathes T, Neugebauer EAM, Eikermann M. Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(4):368–375. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.007
15. Pérez-Bracchiglione J, Meza N, Bangdiwala SI, Niño de Guzmán EP, Urrútia G, Bonfill X, Madrid E. Graphical representation of overlap for overviews: GROOVE tool. Res Synth Methods. 2022;13(3):381–388. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1557
16. Joanna Briggs Institute. JBI critical appraisal checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2026 Feb 3]. Available from: https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI_Critical_Appraisal-Checklist_for_Systematic_Reviews2017_0.pdf
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Maria Bertuol, Stefano Terzoni, Paolo Ferrara, Mauro Parozzi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Accepted 2026-06-12
Published 2026-07-31
