Research on Brain Tumors in Mexico: A Bibliometric Analysis from the Latin America

Background: Bibliometrics is a completive method of research and analyses useful to understand the collective contributions of a given scientific community. The detail of the quantity (productivity) and impact as a surrogate marker of quality can shed light on what we have done (number of articles) and how we impact others (citations). It also shows the direction the community can take for further research, guided by its shortcomings and successes. The publications of Latin American medical institutions on brain neoplasms have never been studied.Objective: Analyze a clinical and experimental approach, identifying core journals, type of article, increase of published material with time, number of citations. Additionally, we identified the most researched topics involved in brain tumor literature.Material and methods: We harvested the articles published by at least one author form the Instituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía form Mexico since its inception in 1964 to 2020. Key bibliometric parameters, as journal of publication, type of paper, number of articles and citations were recorded. Results: In cerebral neoplasms, our institution produced 291 articles (clinical versus experimental: 227 vs. 64). With a modest productivity before 2000, the production had increased 8-fold by 2019. The main topic is glioblastoma, also with the highest number of citations. Researchers prefer to conduct original investigations rather than to subject reviews. Most papers were published in Archivos de Neurociencias (institutional journal produced in Spanish), most papers published in English were in Journal of Neuro-Oncology. Discussion: Productivity had an encouraging growth in the last decade, but more emphasis should be given to target international journals, which offer a high number of readers and citations. Strategies to reach these goals have to be found and should be implemented.Conclusion: Research on brain tumors in Mexico has recently showed buoyancy and we should profit from this inertia to give a definitive boost to it, which might benefit authors and institutional prestige. But mainly, with a more robust research, we could find better solutions for our patients, applicable in the national and international context.