What question did this study set out to answer?

The study aims to analyze literature trends in disaster medicine and emergency medical rescue from 1992 to 2024.

February 8, 2026Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness

Bibliometric Evaluation of Disaster Medicine and Emergency Medical Rescue Research (1992–2024): A Brief Report

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

The study aims to analyze literature trends in disaster medicine and emergency medical rescue from 1992 to 2024.
Articles were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection using specific search terms.
A total of 727 articles were analyzed, with 654 focused on disaster medicine and 73 on medical rescue.
Bibliometric analyses were conducted using RStudio and applying Bradford’s and Lotka’s laws.
Disaster medicine publications averaged 12.9 citations per year, while emergency medical rescue averaged 11.6 citations.
The international co-authorship rate was 25.1% for disaster medicine and 30.1% for emergency medical rescue.
Key themes have emerged, including 'preparedness resilience-public health' in disaster medicine and 'management-simulation-triage' in medical rescue.

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Implication

This bibliometric evaluation analyzes trends and collaboration in disaster medicine and emergency medical rescue research from 1992 to 2024, indicating growth in key themes.

Cite This Study

Dağ et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6988292d0fc35cd7a88495cc https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2026.10307

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Implication

This bibliometric evaluation analyzes trends and collaboration in disaster medicine and emergency medical rescue research from 1992 to 2024, indicating growth in key themes.

Bibliometric Evaluation of Disaster Medicine and Emergency Medical Rescue Research (1992–2024): A Brief Report

Key Points

Discussion

Implication

Cite This Study

Bibliometric Evaluation of Disaster Medicine and Emergency Medical Rescue Research (1992–2024): A Brief Report

Key Points

Discussion

Implication

Cite This Study

Keep reading

Keep reading