Bibliometric analysis maps Lassa virus research trends, highlighting gaps in local involvement and environmental factors.
Lassa virus (LASV) is a zoonotic disease that was first reported in 1965. After 55 years, its research landscape is not fully understood. Hence, the need for a bibliometric study aimed at identification of the LASV research landscape. We searched the Scopus database and analyzed resulting data using VOSviewer Window (version 1.6.15), Biblioshiny (version3.0), and RStudio (version 4.0) to reveal trends in LASV publications, including keywords, authors’ productivity over time, and collaboration among research institutions and universities. From Scopus, we retrieved 1566 studies, and our trend analysis indicated three distinct phases: a low productivity phase (1970–2002), consistent increase phase (2003–2014), and high productivity phase (2015–2025). The Journal of Virology included the most LASV publications (132 articles). Original research articles dominated the LASV publications with 1270 (81.10%), followed by reviews 296 (18.90%). Keyword analysis revealed evolution over time, with terms used to describe LASV forming the most dominant network across clusters. Factorial analysis revealed keywords absence linked to health and environment role in LASV spread. Among the top 50 authors, 20% were from Africa (Guinea, Mali, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone), indicating minimal locally driven research. Country collaboration network analysis revealed the dominance of the United States, Germany, France, and China, while Nigeria was prominently represented in Africa. The findings further indicate few studies on vaccines and therapeutics, and less involvement of authors from LASV-endemic regions. There is a need for locally driven studies from a One Health perspective. • Keywords linked to the role of environment in the spread of LASV were lacking. • Among the top 50 authors, 20% were from LASV endemic countries. • Income-rich nation like the USA dominated collaboration networks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Edet et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: