Survey reveals increased publications on pressure ulcers in high-income economies like East Asia and Western Europe, indicating a focus on this health issue.
Objective: While the assessment of scientific research output is common, pressure ulcer (PU) research lacks a comprehensive global survey. This study aimed to evaluate the volume and impact of worldwide PU publications from 2015–2024, as well as delineate global scientific production characteristics. Method: Original articles and reviews concerning PUs published between 2015–2024 were retrieved from the Web of Science database. Data extracted for each contributing nation included total publication count, publications per capita and per gross domestic product (GDP), total citations and mean number of citations per article. Countries were categorised by income level and geographical region. Results: The survey identified 7461 publications, with a significant upward trajectory in annual output (p<0.001). East Asia, North America and Western Europe were the most productive regions. High-income economies contributed the substantial majority (72.36%) of articles. The US led in absolute publication volume (1816 articles, 24.34%) and total citations (39,870). When normalised, Turkey ranked highest for number of publications per $100 billion USD GDP (24.41), while Australia led on number of publications per 10 million population (140.29). Canada achieved the highest mean number of citations per paper (27.33). A significant positive correlation was observed between numbers of publications and national GDP (r=0.574; p=0.010), but not with population size (r=0.366; p=0.132). Conclusion: Global research output on PUs has markedly increased over the past decade, predominantly driven by high-income nations. The US is the leading contributor in absolute terms, whereas countries such as Australia and Turkey exhibit strong relative productivity. National economic status significantly correlated with research contributions in this domain.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: