Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 25, 2026
Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
Published on: October 24, 2019
Bibliometric analysis on Australian rural health publications from 2006 to 2012
Kumara Mendis1, Tegan Edwards, Wendy Stevens
1Bathurst Rural Clinical School, School of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, Bathurst, New South Wales, Australia.
Objective:
To review Australian rural health (ARH) publications in PubMed from 2006 to 2012 and address ARH issues raised by the 2013 Health and Medical Research report.
Design:
Retrospective observational study.
Setting:
Internet-based bibliometric analysis using PubMed. MEDLINE-indexed ARH publications from 2006 to 2012 were retrieved using PubMed queries. ARH publications were defined as Australian publications that explore issues relevant to the health of the regional, rural or remote Australian population. Two authors independently reviewed a random sample of 5% of publications for validity.
Main Outcome Measures:
Analysis determined country of origin (Australia); publications relevant to the National Health Priority Areas, the 2013 National Rural Health Alliance priority areas and Rural Clinical Schools/University Departments of Rural Health; and journal frequencies and publication types.
Results:
ARH publications increased from 286 in 2006 to 393 in 2012 and made up 1.4% of all Australian PubMed publications. Combined, the health priority areas were addressed in 52% of ARH publications. Rural Clinical Schools/University Departments of Rural Health articles made up 7% of ARH publications. An increase in cohort studies, systematic reviews and reviews indicated improved quality of articles. ARH articles were most commonly published in the Australian Journal of Rural Health (15.9%), Rural and Remote Health (13.4%) and the Medical Journal of Australia (6.3%). Striking a balance between broadening the queries (increasing sensitivity) and limiting the false positives by restricting the breadth of the queries (increasing specificity) was the main limitation.
Conclusions:
This reproducible analysis, repeated at given timelines, can track the progress of ARH publications and provide directions regarding future rural health research.
