Table 3 The BIBLIO checklist for reporting the bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature

Title

 Identification

1

Identify the report as a bibliometric review in the title

 Issues/topics

2

Indicate the key issues/topics under investigation and coverage of time period

Abstract

 Structured summary

3

Structured summary including (as applicable): background, methods, results (key findings), and conclusions

Introduction/background

 Justification/rationale/explanation

4

Present review of existing knowledge and epidemiological information

 Objectives

5

Statement of the objective(s) or question(s)

Methods

 Search engines (data sources)

6

Describe all information sources (such as electronic databases, contact with study authors, trial registers, or other gray literature sources)

 Search strategy

7

Keywords and systematization criteria (date of search, language, type of document) for the search

 Time period

8

The period that the review covers and the justification

 Eligibility criteria

9

Describe all inclusion and exclusion criteria, languages, study design, type of publication, and time period

 Data refinement (data selection procedure)

10

Remove the irrelevant articles; inspection to eliminate duplicate and unrelated articles (after evaluation of the title, abstract, and content)

 Quality assessment (optional)

11

Assessment of papers by three authors and the use of assessing checklists

 Data synthesis

12

Describe the methods used for summarizing, handling, synthesis, tabulations, or schematic displays. Describe how the data were analyzed

Results

 Descriptive findings (statistics)

13

- Provide details of the search and selection process in a flow diagram

- Number of citations retrieved (number of publication, year of publication, type of documents, country of publication, articles with the highest impact, most impactful authors, most impactful articles, authors with the highest production, top journals, top institutions, …)

 Schematic map and trend

14

Summarize and/or present the schematic maps and trends using an appropriate software to present citations, journals, authors, top journals, time trends, emerging literature, and any relevant indicators (as applicable) [64,65,66,67,68]

 Tabulation and summarizing the findings

15

General recommendation: Studies under consideration could be summarized and organized by different subtitles and different scenarios. Regardless, results need to be presented in separate tables covering each subtitle. The followings are some options that could help to summarize the findings

Option 1:

- Start the presentation with a historical view [when and who first published on the topic]

- Report on review papers. The result should be listed in a separate table. Also, specify the review type (scoping review, narrative review, systematic review, and meta-analysis)

- Summarize the findings according to the study designs and main study types

Option 2:

- Start the presentation with a historical view [when and who first published on the topic]

- Report on review papers. The result should be listed in a separate table. Also, indicate the review type (scoping review, narrative review, systematic review, and meta-analysis) should be specified

- Summarize the findings according to outcome measures or populations. For example, see [63]

Option 3:

- Start the presentation with a historical view [when and who first published on the topic]

- Report on review papers. The result should be listed in a separate table. Also, specify the review type (scoping review, narrative review, systematic review, and meta-analysis)

- Summarize the findings according to concept [28]

Option 4:

- Start the presentation with a historical view [when and who first published on the topic]

- Report on review papers. The result should be listed in a separate table, and also specify the review type (scoping review, narrative review, systematic review, and meta-analysis)

- Summarize the findings according to different subtitles relevant to the main topic [26]

 Synthesis of findings

16

Synthesize the findings as much as possible, find the gap, and propose a model, hypothesis, etc. (if applicable)

Discussion

 Summary of evidence

17

Summarize the main findings. The findings should be presented in more “general” or “accessible” terms

 Interpretation

18

Include interpretation consistent with results. Explanations for observed outcomes, similarities, and differences reported would be essential

 Strengths and limitations

19

Discuss the strengths and limitations

 Conclusion(s)

20

Provide a general interpretation of the results with respect to the review questions and objectives, as well as potential implications