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 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 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: Twitter, representing a big social media network, is broadly used for the communication of health-related information. In this work, we aimed to identify and analyze the scientific literature on Twitter use in context of health by utilizing a bibliometric approach, in order to obtain quantitative information on dominant research topics, trending themes, key publications, scientific institutions, and prolific researchers who contributed to this scientific area.Methods: Web of Science electronic database was searched to identify relevant papers on Twitter and health. Basic bibliographic data was obtained utilizing the “Analyze” function of the database. Full records and cited references were exported to VOSviewer, a dedicated bibliometric software, for further analysis. A term map and a keyword map were synthesized to visualize recurring words within titles, abstracts and keywords.Results: The analysis was based on the data from 2,582 papers. The first papers were published in 2009, and the publication count increased rapidly since 2015. Original articles and reviews were published in a ratio of 10.6:1. The Journal of Medical Internet Research was the top journal, and the United States had contributions to over half (52%) of these publications, being the home-country of eight of the top ten most productive institutions. Keyword analysis identified six topically defined clusters, with professional education in healthcare being the top theme cluster (consisting of 66 keywords). The identified papers often investigated Twitter together with other social media, such as YouTube and Facebook.Conclusions: A great diversity of themes was found in the identified papers, including: professional education in healthcare, big data and sentiment analysis, social marketing and substance use, physical and emotional well-being of young adults, and public health and health communication. Our quantitative analysis outlines Twitter as both, an increasingly popular data source, and a highly versatile tool for health-related research.

Open innovation in medical and pharmaceutical research has grown steadily over the last decade. However, the performance of the published literature in terms of the scientific impact and gaining social media attention remains largely unexplored. The scientific literature of open innovation was examined by means of bibliometric analyses to identify the most prolific authors, organizations, countries, journals, research areas, and recurring terms. By accessing the Web of Science Core Collection and Altmetric electronic databases, citation-related and Altmetric data were evaluated. Public-private partnerships and a selection of newly introduced potential novel drugs in the analyzed publications were identified. North America and Europe were the major literature contributors. Research outputs were mainly published in journals focused on business and economics, pharmacology and pharmacy, and engineering. Many pharmaceutical and biotechnological companies contributed to the analyzed publications, with higher mean citation counts and social media attention (Altmetric score) than nonindustry articles. Public-private partnerships fostered financial support, sharing of expertise and intellectual property, and research collaborations. In summary, open innovation might serve as a powerful strategy to both benefit the involved industry entities and accelerate the development of solutions and products for the betterment of human health.

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.

Background COVID-19 was declared a global health emergency. Since children are less than 1% of reported cases, there is limited information to develop evidence-based practice recommendations. The objective of this study was to rapidly gather expert knowledge and experience to guide the care of children with chronic kidney disease during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A four-round multi-center Delphi exercise was conducted among 13 centers in 11 European countries of the European Pediatric Dialysis Working Group (EPDWG) between March, 16th and 20th 2020. Results were analyzed using a mixed methods qualitative approach and descriptive statistics. Results Thirteen COVID-19 specific topics of particular need for guidance were identified. Main themes encompassed testing strategies and results (n = 4), changes in use of current therapeutics (n = 3), preventive measurements of transmission and management of COVID-19 (n = 3), and changes in standard clinical care (n = 3). Patterns of center-specific responses varied according to regulations and to availability of guidelines. Conclusions As limited quantitative evidence is available in real time during the rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, qualitative expert knowledge and experience represent the best evidence available. This Delphi exercise demonstrates that use of mixed methodologies embedded in an established network of experts allowed prompt analysis of pediatric nephrologists' response to COVID-19 during this fast-emerging public health crisis. Such rapid sharing of knowledge and local practices is Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.essential to timely and optimal guidance for medical management of specific patient groups in multi-country health care systems such as those of Europe and the US.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.