A Bibliometric Analysis of Publications on the Prevalence of Chronic Pain in Children and Adolescents From 2009 to 2023.

Bibliometric reviews explore patterns in publications in a given research area by exploring trends over time and the contributions by citations, such as relationships between authors and publications. Despite "chronic pain" being the second most common keyword in pain research, no bibliometric reviews have focused on publication trends related to the prevalence of chronic pain in children and adolescents. A bibliometric analysis was conducted with articles included in a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of pediatric chronic pain to identify the recent trajectory of the field and guide future directions. Publication bibliometrics data from the articles were extracted and analyzed (e.g., gender of authors, citation counts, and countries) and was visualized in VOSViewer. Among 119 studies, the number of publications per year ranged from 4 (2023) to 11 (2014, 2021) with an average of 8/year. Articles were cited on average 36.6 times (SD = 51.7, range 0-380) with 5058 unique citations. There were 74 different journals represented, with most publishing only 1 article (n = 52, 70%). Seventy countries were represented in prevalence data, 78% from high-income countries; fifteen (21.4%) had only one data point, primarily from low- and lower-middle income countries. There were 109 different corresponding authors, with only 1 corresponding author who had more than 2 published articles. There was relative gender equity in terms of first and corresponding author. There was little to no collaboration between author groups identified. Despite a steady number of articles published over the 14-year period, the literature on the prevalence of pediatric chronic pain appears fragmented with articles published in a wide variety of journals. Prevalence data from low- and lower-middle-income countries were under-represented. Future work should focus on expanding evidence in underrepresented areas and greater collaboration among research groups to collect prevalence data in geographical areas where data gaps exist.