Research on major depression in China: A perspective from bibliometric analysis

Highlights

• This is the first study to examine the progress of MDD research in China.

• MDD has gained increased attention of China’s scientific community.

• Chinese researchers had global and national collaborative networks.

• Papers in English and Chinese tend to emphasize different aspects of MDD,with some overlap.

Abstract

Background

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a major psychiatric disorder with increasing research intensity. However, papers written in languages other than English are less accessible to international readers. This study examined the bibliometric features of English and Chinese language research papers about major depressive disorder in China.

Methods

The Web of Science (WoS) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were searched for eligible studies. Authorship collaboration networks and keyword co-occurrences were estimated and visualized.

Results

There were 2,220 and 63,306 publications on MDD in the WoS and CNKI between 1990 and 2021, respectively. The number of papers increased annually during the period. For papers written in English, the Journal of Affective Disorders (201; 9.05 %) had the highest activity and the Shanghai Jiao Tong University had the most publications (232; 10.45 %). For papers in Chinese, the highest activity was with the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (1,025; 1.62 %) and the Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (1,098; 1.73 %). Xiang YT (68; 3.06 %) and Yuan YG (179; 0.28 %) were the most productive authors in the English and Chinese languages, respectively. Keyword analysis showed that English and Chinese publications differed in emphasis (English: related psychiatric conditions, study design, clinical aspects, and assessment instruments; Chinese: somatic comorbidities, antidepressants, related psychiatric conditions, treatment of depression, and electrophysiological).

Conclusions

The number of scientific papers on MDD increased yearly, and Chinese authors writing in English have an increasing influence. Except for a few authors, productivity and influence were dominated by national universities and specialized medical universities.

Introduction

As a leading cause of global disease burden (Global Health Data Exchange, 2019), major depressive disorder (MDD) has generated a rapidly growing body of scientific papers over time (Lipsman and Lozano, 2011). In recent years, studies on MDD conducted in China have increased dramatically (Yan et al., 2021; Yanan et al., 2020). However, many have been published in Chinese-language journals (Jing and Li, 2022; Shunwang et al., 2020; Yan et al., 2021), which are less accessible to international readers. MDD can be studied from a wide range of lenses and different levels. These include its biological underpinnings, clinical aspects, interaction with other disorders, psychosocial aspects, and the financial burden on health systems (Akechi et al., 2022; Pilmeyer et al., 2022; Shi-Jie et al., 2017; Tan and Goh, 2022). Overall research activity and trends can be better understood through bibliometrics, and this is true of MDD research. Bibliometrics, which can be defined as the application of statistical methods to publications (Pritchard, 1969), shows the development of ideas over time and particularly impactful papers. For example, Lipsman and Lozano identified 243 influential papers on MDD that received more than 400 citations each (Lipsman and Lozano, 2011). Since each citation represents a scientific paper, the number of citations serves as a proxy for the influence of a paper or author (Merediz-Sola and Bariviera, 2019; Podlubny, 2005).

Bibliometric analysis consists of performance analysis and science mapping (Donthu et al., 2021). The former represents the contributions of research constituents, such as the total publications/citations, journal sources, or the most contributing authors, while the technique of science mapping focuses on the relationships between research constituents. Bibliometric data can be visualized through networks of keywords, co-citations, and collaborative relationships between authors, journals, institutions, and countries (van Eck and Waltman, 2014). Networks of keywords reveal hotspots that represent themes in a given field. Currently, MDD-related themes derived from Chinese studies tend to focus on treatment methods (Chen and Shan, 2019; Tran et al., 2019; Xiang et al., 2021), prevalence (Lin et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2021), and comorbidities (Hu et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2021). To date, however, the overall development process and research characteristics of MDD-related research in China are not clear.

Building on previous bibliometric work, the present study aims to: (1) describe the research outputs and characteristics of MDD papers from China; (2) identify collaborations among authors, institutions and countries; (3) analyze keyword hotspots; and (4) identify differences between Chinese and English literature.