Global Landscape of Cardiovascular Research: A Continental Bibliometric Analysis Standardized by Population and Physician Density
Temgoua, M.; Ouankou, C. N.; Amara, W.; Bonny, A.
Show abstract
BackgroundCardiovascular diseases (CVDs) remain the leading cause of global mortality. Despite rising research output, geographic disparities persist in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. ObjectivesTo evaluate cardiovascular research productivity across world regions by normalizing publication output to population size and physician density, and to quantify disparities using Z-scores. MethodsA comprehensive bibliometric analysis was conducted using Medline/PubMed to identify CVD-related publications across all 193 UN-recognized countries. Data were standardized using 2025 population estimates and WHO-reported physician density. Two standardized metrics were computed : publications per million population and publications per physician density. Z-scores were calculated to assess research productivity relative to global means. ResultsA total of 474,599 CVD publications were identified. Europe led in absolute volume (34.2%), followed by the Americas (30.7%) and Asia (25.8%). When adjusted per population density, Oceania (428.6), North America (336.7), and Western Europe (268.1) ranked highest. In contrast, Asia (15,917.3) and Sub-Saharan Africa (10,209.2) demonstrated the highest efficiency when adjusted for physician density. Z-score analysis revealed that Oceania (Z = +1.80), North America (Z = +1.25), and Western Europe (Z = +0.83) outperformed other regions in per capita productivity. However, when adjusted for physician density, Asia (Z = +2.18) and Sub-Saharan Africa (Z = +1.17) emerged as unexpectedly efficient despite limited workforce capacity. At the national level, Canada (Z = +2.44) and Japan (Z = +1.37) excelled per capita, while the United States (Z = +2.72) and Japan (Z = +1.83) led in physician-adjusted output. ConclusionMajor geographic disparities exist in cardiovascular research output. Standardization by population and physician densities reveals high-efficiency zones in lowerresource settings, challenging assumptions about global scientific productivity. Strategic investment in underrepresented regions is essential to foster equitable knowledge generation and strengthen global cardiovascular health.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Inequalities in COVID-19 inequalities research: who had the capacity to respond? 94%
- Stent For Life Initiative in Portugal: progress through years and Covid-19 Impact 92%
- Investigating the Nature of Open Science Practices Across Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Journals: An Audit 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Conceptualizing centers of excellence: A global evidence 91%
- Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open-access publishing each year 91%
- Early Structural Cardiovascular Disease, HIV, and Tuberculosis in East Africa (ASANTE): Cross-sectional study protocol for a multimodal cardiac imaging study in Nairobi, Kenya 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Predicting long-term prognosis after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a prospective nested case-control analysis for county-level health services 90%
- Results of the inoperable and operable with aortic valve endocarditis 90%
- Mid-term subclinical myocardial injury detection in patients recovered from COVID-19 according pulmonary lesion severity 90%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.