Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tremendous scientific researches have been conducted in the field of diabetic kidney disease (DKD), while few bibliometric analyses have been performed. We aim to identify 100 top-cited published articles about DKD and analyze their main characteristics quantitatively. METHODS: Web of Science was searched with the term 'diabetic kidney disease' OR 'diabetic nephropathy' to identify the top 100 most cited articles. For articles meeting the predefined criteria, the following data were extracted and analyzed: citation ranking, publication year, publication journal, journal impact factor, country and institution, authors, study type, and keywords. RESULTS: The highest number of citations was 4753 times. The median average citations per year was 21.8 (IQR, 16.6-33.0). Most articles focused on the pathogenesis and treatment. These articles were published in 25 different journals and the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology published the greatest number (20%). Forty-three articles (43%) originated from the United States. The University of Groningen was the leading institute, contributing five top-cited articles. The most frequent first author was de Zeeuw (n = 4), followed by Parving (n = 3). There was no correlation between the average citations and the number of authors, the number of institutes, or the number of funds, respectively. Experimental animal study was the research type most frequently conducted (n = 30), followed by observational study (n = 24). Keyword analysis revealed transforming growth factor-β, oxidative stress, proteinuria, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system interruption are classic research topics. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and anti-inflammatory agents are the emerging trends of DKD. CONCLUSIONS: This bibliometric analysis helps in identifying the milestones, inadequacies, classic hotspots, and emerging trends of DKD. Pathogenesis and treatment are core themes in DKD research, while high-quality articles on the prediction and biomarker are insufficient. New analyzing metrics are needed to assess the actual impact of these top-cited articles on clinical practice.