Background: Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) have recently become popular research themes. However, there are no published bibliometric reports that have analyzed the corresponding scientific literature in relation to the application of these technologies in medicine. Objective: We used a bibliometric approach to identify and analyze the scientific literature on VR and AR research in medicine, revealing the popular research topics, key authors, scientific institutions, countries, and journals. We further aimed to capture and describe the themes and medical conditions most commonly investigated by VR and AR research. Methods: The Web of Science electronic database was searched to identify relevant papers on VR research in medicine. Basic publication and citation data were acquired using the “Analyze” and “Create Citation Report” functions of the database. Complete bibliographic data were exported to VOSviewer and Bibliometrix, dedicated bibliometric software packages, for further analyses. Visualization maps were generated to illustrate the recurring keywords and words mentioned in the titles and abstracts. Results: The analysis was based on data from 8399 papers. Major research themes were diagnostic and surgical procedures, as well as rehabilitation. Commonly studied medical conditions were pain, stroke, anxiety, depression, fear, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders. Overall, contributions to the literature were globally distributed with heaviest contributions from the United States and United Kingdom. Studies from more clinically related research areas such as surgery, psychology, neurosciences, and rehabilitation had higher average numbers of citations than studies from computer sciences and engineering. Conclusions: The conducted bibliometric analysis unequivocally reveals the versatile emerging applications of VR and AR in medicine. With the further maturation of the technology and improved accessibility in countries where VR and AR research is strong, we expect it to have a marked impact on clinical practice and in the life of patients.

Background: Social media has been extensively used for the communication of health-related information and consecutively for the potential spread of medical misinformation. Conventional systematic reviews have been published on this topic to identify original articles and to summarize their methodological approaches and themes. A bibliometric study could complement their findings, for instance, by evaluating the geographical distribution of the publications and determining if they were well cited and disseminated in high-impact journals. Objective: The aim of this study was to perform a bibliometric analysis of the current literature to discover the prevalent trends and topics related to medical misinformation on social media. Methods: The Web of Science Core Collection electronic database was accessed to identify relevant papers with the following search string: ALL=(misinformati* OR “wrong informati*” OR disinformati* OR “misleading informati*” OR “fake news*”) AND ALL=(medic* OR illness* OR disease* OR health* OR pharma* OR drug* OR therap*) AND ALL=(“social media*” OR Facebook* OR Twitter* OR Instagram* OR YouTube* OR Weibo* OR Whatsapp* OR Reddit* OR TikTok* OR WeChat*). Full records were exported to a bibliometric software, VOSviewer, to link bibliographic information with citation data. Term and keyword maps were created to illustrate recurring terms and keywords. Results: Based on an analysis of 529 papers on medical and health-related misinformation on social media, we found that the most popularly investigated social media platforms were Twitter (n=90), YouTube (n=67), and Facebook (n=57). Articles targeting these 3 platforms had higher citations per paper (>13.7) than articles covering other social media platforms (Instagram, Weibo, WhatsApp, Reddit, and WeChat; citations per paper <8.7). Moreover, social media platform–specific papers accounted for 44.1% (233/529) of all identified publications. Investigations on these platforms had different foci. Twitter-based research explored cyberchondria and hypochondriasis, YouTube-based research explored tobacco smoking, and Facebook-based research studied vaccine hesitancy related to autism. COVID-19 was a common topic investigated across all platforms. Overall, the United States contributed to half of all identified papers, and 80% of the top 10 most productive institutions were based in this country. The identified papers were mostly published in journals of the categories public environmental and occupational health, communication, health care sciences services, medical informatics, and medicine general internal, with the top journal being the Journal of Medical Internet Research. Conclusions: There is a significant platform-specific topic preference for social media investigations on medical misinformation. With a large population of internet users from China, it may be reasonably expected that Weibo, WeChat, and TikTok (and its Chinese version Douyin) would be more investigated in future studies. Currently, these platforms present research gaps that leave their usage and information dissemination warranting further evaluation. Future studies should also include social platforms targeting non-English users to provide a wider global perspective.

Background: On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization’s Emergency Committee declared the rapid, worldwide spread of COVID-19 a global health emergency. Since then, tireless efforts have been made to mitigate the spread of the disease and its impact, and these efforts have mostly relied on nonpharmaceutical interventions. By December 2020, the safety and efficacy of the first COVID-19 vaccines were demonstrated. The large social media platform Twitter has been used by medical researchers for the analysis of important public health topics, such as the public’s perception on antibiotic use and misuse and human papillomavirus vaccination. The analysis of Twitter-generated data can be further facilitated by using Twitter’s built-in, anonymous polling tool to gain insight into public health issues and obtain rapid feedback on an international scale. During the fast-paced course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Twitter polling system has provided a viable method for gaining rapid, large-scale, international public health insights on highly relevant and timely SARS-CoV-2–related topics. Objective: The purpose of this study was to understand the public’s perception on the safety and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines in real time by using Twitter polls. Methods: We developed 2 Twitter polls to explore the public’s views on available COVID-19 vaccines. The surveys were pinned to the Digital Health and Patient Safety Platform Twitter timeline for 1 week in mid-February 2021, and Twitter users and influencers were asked to participate in and retweet the polls to reach the largest possible audience. Results: The adequacy of COVID-19 vaccine safety (ie, the safety of currently available vaccines; poll 1) was agreed upon by 1579 out of 3439 (45.9%) Twitter users. In contrast, almost as many Twitter users (1434/3439, 41.7%) were unsure about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Only 5.2% (179/3439) of Twitter users rated the available COVID-19 vaccines as generally unsafe. Poll 2, which addressed the question of whether users would undergo vaccination, was answered affirmatively by 82.8% (2862/3457) of Twitter users, and only 8% (277/3457) categorically rejected vaccination at the time of polling. Conclusions: In contrast to the perceived high level of uncertainty about the safety of the available COVID-19 vaccines, we observed an elevated willingness to undergo vaccination among our study sample. Since people's perceptions and views are strongly influenced by social media, the snapshots provided by these media platforms represent a static image of a moving target. Thus, the results of this study need to be followed up by long-term surveys to maintain their validity. This is especially relevant due to the circumstances of the fast-paced pandemic and the need to not miss sudden rises in the incidence of vaccine hesitancy, which may have detrimental effects on the pandemic’s course.

Background: Digital technology uses in cardiology have become a popular research focus in recent years. However, there has been no published bibliometric report that analyzed the corresponding academic literature in order to derive key publishing trends and characteristics of this scientific area. Objective: We used a bibliometric approach to identify and analyze the academic literature on digital technology uses in cardiology, and to unveil popular research topics, key authors, institutions, countries, and journals. We further captured the cardiovascular conditions and diagnostic tools most commonly investigated within this field. Methods: The Web of Science electronic database was queried to identify relevant papers on digital technology uses in cardiology. Publication and citation data were acquired directly from the database. Complete bibliographic data were exported to VOSviewer, a dedicated bibliometric software package, and related to the semantic content of titles, abstracts, and keywords. A term map was constructed for findings visualization. Results: The analysis was based on data from 12,529 papers. Of the top 5 most productive institutions, 4 were based in the United States. The United States was the most productive country (4224/12,529, 33.7%), followed by United Kingdom (1136/12,529, 9.1%), Germany (1067/12,529, 8.5%), China (682/12,529, 5.4%), and Italy (622/12,529, 5.0%). Cardiovascular diseases that had been frequently investigated included hypertension (152/12,529, 1.2%), atrial fibrillation (122/12,529, 1.0%), atherosclerosis (116/12,529, 0.9%), heart failure (106/12,529, 0.8%), and arterial stiffness (80/12,529, 0.6%). Recurring modalities were electrocardiography (170/12,529, 1.4%), angiography (127/12,529, 1.0%), echocardiography (127/12,529, 1.0%), digital subtraction angiography (111/12,529, 0.9%), and photoplethysmography (80/12,529, 0.6%). For a literature subset on smartphone apps and wearable devices, the Journal of Medical Internet Research (20/632, 3.2%) and other JMIR portfolio journals (51/632, 8.0%) were the major publishing venues. Conclusions: Digital technology uses in cardiology target physicians, patients, and the general public. Their functions range from assisting diagnosis, recording cardiovascular parameters, and patient education, to teaching laypersons about cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This field already has had a great impact in health care, and we anticipate continued growth.

Background: Digital teaching in medical education has grown in popularity in the recent years. However, to the best of our knowledge, no bibliometric report to date has been published that analyzes this important literature set to reveal prevailing topics and trends and their impacts reflected in citation counts. Objective: We used a bibliometric approach to unveil and evaluate the scientific literature on digital teaching research in medical education, demonstrating recurring research topics, productive authors, research organizations, countries, and journals. We further aimed to discuss some of the topics and findings reported by specific highly cited works. Methods: The Web of Science electronic database was searched to identify relevant papers on digital teaching research in medical education. Basic bibliographic data were obtained by the “Analyze” and “Create Citation Report” functions of the database. Complete bibliographic data were exported to VOSviewer for further analyses. Visualization maps were generated to display the recurring author keywords and terms mentioned in the titles and abstracts of the publications. Results: The analysis was based on data from 3978 papers that were identified. The literature received worldwide contributions with the most productive countries being the United States and United Kingdom. Reviews were significantly more cited, but the citations between open access vs non–open access papers did not significantly differ. Some themes were cited more often, reflected by terms such as virtual reality, innovation, trial, effectiveness, and anatomy. Different aspects in medical education were experimented for digital teaching, such as gross anatomy education, histology, complementary medicine, medicinal chemistry, and basic life support. Some studies have shown that digital teaching could increase learning satisfaction, knowledge gain, and even cost-effectiveness. More studies were conducted on trainees than on undergraduate students. Conclusions: Digital teaching in medical education is expected to flourish in the future, especially during this era of COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: For preterm infants, human milk (HM) has to be fortified to cover their enhanced nutritional requirements and establish adequate growth. Most HM fortifiers are based on bovine protein sources (BMF). An HM fortifier based on human protein sources (HMF) has become available in the last few years. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of an HMF versus BMF on growth in extremely low birth weight (ELBW, <1000 g) infants. Methods: This was a retrospective, controlled, multicenter cohort study in infants with a birthweight below 1000 g. The HMF group received an exclusive HM diet up to 32+0 weeks of gestation and was changed to BMF afterwards. The BMF group received HM+BMF from fortifier introduction up to 37+0 weeks. Results: 192 extremely low birth weight (ELBW)-infants were included (HMF n = 96, BMF n = 96) in the study. After the introduction of fortification, growth velocity up to 32+0 weeks was significantly lower in the HMF group (16.5 g/kg/day) in comparison to the BMF group (18.9 g/kg/day, p = 0.009) whereas all other growth parameters did not differ from birth up to 37+0 weeks. Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) incidence was 10% in the HMF and 8% in the BMF group. Conclusion: Results from this study do not support the superiority of HFM over BMF in ELBW infants.