A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE TERMINOLOGY USED IN POTENTIALLY MALIGNANT ORAL DISORDERS - TRENDS FROM THE 100 MOST CITED ARTICLES FROM 2017-2024
Keywords:
Oral cancer, Oral potentially malignant disorders, bibliometric analysis, precancerous conditionsAbstract
INTRODUCTION: The study of Oral Potentially Malignant Disorders (OPMD) plays a crucial role in the prevention of oral cancer. Even after the OMS standardization in 2017, inconsistencies in nomenclature persist. This study aims to contribute to the uniformization of diagnostic criteria. OBJECTIVE: To perform a bibliometric analysis of terminology use in the 100 most cited articles on OPMD between 2017 and 2024. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive bibliometric search was conducted in the Web of Science, resulting in articles on OPMD. After applying eligibility criteria, the top 100 most cited articles were analyzed. Network analyses evaluated terminology trends and collaborative networks. RESULTS: Among the top 100 articles, most adopted the term “OPMD,” as endorsed by WHO in 2017; however, 59 articles continued to use non-standardized or hybrid terminology. The most common associated keywords were “OPMD” and “Oral Premalignant Lesion.” A progressive increase in the use of “OPMD” was observed. Among professionals who used the term “OPMD,” the majority (63.7%) were dentists, while 36.3% represented other professions. Most articles with non-standardized keywords had authors from Asia and Europe, whereas institutions in the United Kingdom tended to adopt “OPMD.”CONCLUSIONS: Although the term “OPMD” has gained greater acceptance, the use of non-standardized terminology still persists. This study highlights the need for consistent terminology, advocating for the adoption of “OPMD” to improve research coherence, facilitate interdisciplinary understanding, and support clinical decision-making.
References
Ellegaard O. The application of bibliometric analysis: disciplinary and user aspects. Scientometrics. 2018;116:181-202.
Jonkers K, Derrick GE. The bibliometric bandwagon: characteristics of bibliometric articles outside the field literature. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2012;63(4):829-36.
Kokol P, Blazun Vosner H, Zavrsnik J. Application of bibliometrics in medicine: a historical bibliometrics analysis. Health Inf Libr J. 2021;38(2):125-38.
Monteiro L, Carey B, Diniz-Freitas M, Lombardi N, Cook R, Fricain JC, Brailo V, Limeres J, Varoni E, Fenelon M, Vidović Juras D, Silva L, Escudier M, Murthy V, Warnakulasuriya S, Albuquerque R, Lodi G. Terminology on oral potentially malignant disorders in European languages: An appraisal. Oral Dis. 2023 Nov;29(8):2990-2.
Reibel J, Gale N, Hille J. Oral potentially malignant disorders and oral epithelial dysplasia. In: El-Naggar AK, Chan JKC, Grandis JR, Takata T, Slootweg PJ, editors. WHO classification of head and neck tumours. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC; 2017. p.112-5.
Romanelli JP, Goncalves MCP, de Abreu Pestana LF, Soares JAH, Boschi RS, Andrade RS. Four challenges when conducting bibliometric reviews and how to deal with them. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2021;28(43):60448-58.
Warnakulasuriya S, Kujan O, Aguirre-Urizar JM, Bagan JV, González-Moles MÁ, Kerr AR, Lodi G, Mello FW, Monteiro L, Ogden GR, Sloan P, Johnson NW. Oral potentially malignant disorders: A consensus report from an international seminar on nomenclature and classification, convened by the WHO Collaborating Centre for Oral Cancer. Oral Dis. 2021 Nov;27(8):1862-80.
Wildgaard J, Schneider JW, Larsen B. A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics. 2014;101(1):125-58.
