Mapping Research Trends in Frailty and Nutrition: A Combined Bibliometric and Structured Review (2000-2024)

衰弱与营养研究趋势分析:文献计量学与结构化综述相结合(2000-2024)

阅读:2

Abstract

Background: Frailty, a multisystem decline in physiological reserves, is a key indicator of aging health. Nutrition is a major modifiable factor associated with its development and progression. This study provides a systematic scientometric analysis of global research trends in nutrition and frailty, thereby addressing a significant gap in the literature. Methods: We systematically retrieved relevant publications from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database for the period 2000-2024. After rigorous screening, a total of 754 publications were included for bibliometric analysis. Using VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and the R package bibliometrix, we analyzed publication trends, collaboration networks (countries, institutions, authors), journal co-citations, reference bursts, and keyword co-occurrence. Additionally, the structured literature review of 257 studies was conducted to synthesize key findings on nutrition-frailty associations. Results: Analysis of 754 global publications revealed consistent growth. The United States and China led contributions. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health was the leading institution. Nutrients (n = 89, 11.8%) published most frequently, while Journals of Gerontology Series A was the most co-cited journal (n = 2058). Fernando Rodríguez-Artalejo had the highest publication count; Linda P. Fried was the most co-cited author. Keyword analysis identified frailty prevention and treatment as the predominant focus. The integrated the literature review specifically highlighted significant gaps, particularly in mechanistic insights and personalized nutrition interventions for frailty. Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis maps the intellectual landscape of nutrition and frailty research. Through quantitative assessment of publication patterns, leading contributors, knowledge domains, and thematic evolution, we characterize the current paradigm and identify emerging directions. Crucially, the synthesis explicitly defines critical research voids, particularly the overreliance on observational evidence, the scarcity of interventional trials, and the lack of global diversity in study populations, thereby providing a clear direction for future interdisciplinary investigations.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。