Bibliometric analysis identifies influential works and collaboration trends in diabetes and sarcopenia research.
Background and Aims: This bibliometric study investigates high-impact publications (HCPs) in Diabetes and Sarcopenia research from 2003 to 2024. The primary aim is to map the scholarly landscape by identifying influential works, key authors, institutions, and emerging trends in the literature, highlighting the interrelationships between diabetes and sarcopenia. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the Scopus database in October 2024 using a combination of keywords related to diabetes and sarcopenia. An initial 2,499 publications were screened, resulting in 151 papers with 100 or more citations. Key bibliographic details, citation counts, author information, and thematic focus areas were extracted and analysed. VOSviewer software was employed for network analysis and visualisation of relationships among authors, institutions and keywords. Results: The analysis revealed that the 151 highly cited papers collectively garnered over 15,000 citations, indicating a strong scholarly impact. Key contributors included prominent authors and institutions primarily from the United States and Europe. Major themes identified encompassed the pathophysiological connections between diabetes and sarcopenia, alongside interventions for muscle preservation in people with diabetes. The network analysis highlighted significant collaborations, emphasising the interdisciplinary nature of this research. The study identifies overarching trends and highlights the need for collaborative efforts to address the complexities of diabetes and sarcopenia. Conclusions: This research provides a comprehensive overview of influential works and their contributions to the understanding of diabetes and sarcopenia. It establishes a foundation for future research and underscores the critical need for ongoing investigation in this area to improve patient management and outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mamdapur et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: