Systematic review and bibliometric analysis of African anesthesia and critical care medicine research part I: hierarchy of evidence and scholarly productivity

• Main Authors: Ulrick Sidney Kanmounye, Joel Noutakdie Tochie, Aimé Mbonda, Cynthia Kévine Wafo, Leonid Daya, Thompson Hope Atem, Arsène Daniel Nyalundja, Daniel Cheryl Eyaman
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2020-09-01
• Series: BMC Anesthesiology
• Subjects: Africa; Anesthesia; Bibliometrics; Global anesthesia; Research
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12871-020-01167-8

Abstract Background Research is an essential component of Anesthesia, and the contributions of researchers and institutions can be appreciated from the analysis of scholarly outputs. Such analyses help identify major contributors and trends in publication. Little is known about the state of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine (A.C.C.M.) research in Africa. We aimed to describe African A.C.C.M. research’s current landscape by determining its productivity per country and point towards possible ideas for improvement. Methods The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from inception to May 4, 2020, for articles on or about A.C.C.M. in Africa. Studies were selected based on their titles and abstracts. Rayyan software was later on used for data management in the review selection process. Then, the full-text of eligible articles were screened. Data were extracted, and the number of articles per physician anesthesia providers and provider density were calculated. Kruskal Wallis test and Spearman’s correlation were used, and a P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Of the 4690 articles, only 886 (18.9%) were included in the analysis. The articles were published between 1946 and 2020 in 278 target journals. 55 (6.2%) articles were published in the South African Journal of Surgery, 51 (5.8%) in Anesthesia and Analgesia, and 46 (5.2%) in Anaesthesia. 291 (32.8%) studies were cross-sectional. 195 (22.0%) first authors were from Nigeria, 118 (13.3%) from South Africa, and 88 (9.9%) from the U.S.A. Malawi (1.67), Togo (1.06), and Sierra Leone (1.00) had the highest number of articles per provider. Whereas Ethiopia (580.00), Nigeria (336.21), and Malawi (333.33) had the highest number of articles per provider density. Conclusion We identified the most and least productive African countries in A.C.C.M. research and a low-quality hierarchy of evidence in these publications. Hence, the study’s findings may aid in driving the A.C.C.M. research agenda and capacity building in Africa.