Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Contemplating the Bibliometric Data Onto Sepsis and Gut Microbiome: Mapping Trends, Collaborations, and Global Contributions Cover

Contemplating the Bibliometric Data Onto Sepsis and Gut Microbiome: Mapping Trends, Collaborations, and Global Contributions

By: Li Zhang,  Yi Wang,  Ping Li,  Xiang Li and  Xiangyou Yu  
Open Access
|Jan 2025

Full Article

1.
Introduction

Sepsis, a life-threatening condition resulting from the body’s dysregulated response to infection (Singer et al. 2016), is a significant contributor to mortality in severe patients, with a mortality rate of up to 29.0%. Septic shock is a severe form of sepsis and is by the means of serious, circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormality, because of the hypotension, which is not corrected by the fluid resuscitation, that accounts for the increase in the death rate (Liu et al. 2022). The pathogenesis of sepsis involves a complex interplay of infection, inflammation, immunity, coagulation, and, notably, intestinal dysfunction and flora imbalance (Haak and Wiersinga 2017, Adelman et al. 2020). Among critically ill patients, the gut microbiome has gained prominence in sepsis research, drawing increasing attention from intensive care unit (ICU) physicians seeking ways to enhance gut microbiome health for improved survival in patients with sepsis.

The gut microbiome comprises the interaction between intestinal flora and the host, encompassing the intestine, intestinal epithelial cells, secretions, ingested food, and nutrients (Cresci and Bawden 2015, Heintz-Buschart and Wilmes 2018). Of particular significance is the role of intestinal flora, which plays a crucial rolein nutrient metabolism, digestion, absorption, resistance to external bacterial colonization, anti-tumor activities, and maintenance of the intestinal barrier and immune function (Jandhyala et al. 2015, Hills et al. 2019). The pathogenesis of sepsis involves the interaction of infection, inflammation, immune dysfunction, coagulation defect, and the disrupted blood-gut barrier is the central part of it. In sepsis, gut permeability increases and the gut bacteria and endotoxins can migrate out of the gut into the bloodstream, which sparks the body’s inflammatory reaction and organ dysfunction. The blood-gut barrier’s impairment gives rise to the difficult immune system situation, moreover, the vicious cycle of inflammation – bacterial multiplication – and the further endotoxin that is added into the bloodstream. Thus, the restoration of the blood-gut barrier is being the key issue in treating sepsis as well as the gastrointestinal microbiome as a component that participates in this process providing the default barrier and the health of the mucosal wall (Dubin 2018). Consequently, investigating the relationship between sepsis and the gut microbiome has become a key focus of numerous studies.

Current research on sepsis and the gut microbiome takes various angles, with some studies examining microbiome composition (Miller et al. 2021), others exploring microbiota dynamics (Kullberg et al. 2021), and additional investigations considering broader aspects of flora involvement. While reviews provide comprehensive summaries and analyses of the interplay between sepsis and the gut microbiome (Tourelle et al. 2021, Zanza et al. 2022), a macroscopic analysis of the overall research landscape in this field is lacking.

To address this gap, our study utilizes bibliometric methods in literature research to systematically analyze published works. Through retrieval, statistical processing, and comprehensive analysis of relevant literature, we aim to unveil the current state of research on the gut microbiome of sepsis patients. Bibliometric enables exploration of key aspects such as geographic distribution of research, institutional affiliations, prominent researchers, favored journals, and prevalent keywords within the literature corpus (Brandt et al. 2019). This methodological approach aims to provide an in-depth understanding of the current focus and developmental trajectory in the expansive field of sepsis and gut microbiome research.

2.
Material and Methods
2.1.
Data Source

The Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) database in the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) was utilized as the primary data source for retrieval. SCI-E is a leading and the most common used database for bibliometric research (Wu et al. 2022, Wu et al. 2024), encompassing English literature and, to some extent, literature in other languages with English abstracts, providing a comprehensive representation of global scientific research.

2.2.
Search Strategy

A “subject” retrieval method was employed for this study, using the retrieval formula: sepsis AND (“gut” OR “gastrointestinal”) AND (“microbiome” OR “microbiota” OR “flora” OR “bacillus”). The search was restricted to publications from 2004 onwards. This search strategy included sepsis broadly without differentiating between bacterial and fungal origins. Therefore, the results reflect a general analysis of sepsis cases that may include studies on both bacterial and fungal sepsis, depending on the scope of individual articles.

2.3.
Analysis

All records and references from the search results were exported in plain text format and analyzed using the bibliometric software package in R. The analysis included; number of documents published by each country in the field, cooperative relationships between countries, number of documents published by institutions, cooperative relationships between institutions, number of documents published by researchers, cooperative relationships between researchers, citation status of researchers, number of documents published in journals, utilization of keywords.

2.4.
Statistical Analysis

Trend charts illustrating the annual number of published documents and the number of cited documents were generated using Excel software. Qualitative data were presented quantitatively and as percentages, facilitating a rigorous statistical exploration of the bibliometric landscape. This methodology provides insights onto the global distribution, collaborative networks, institutional contributions, researcher engagement, citation impact, and journal dissemination within the field of sepsis and gut microbiome research.

3.
Results
3.1.
General Information

A meticulous examination of relevant research literature resulted in the retrieval of 2558 records. Post-duplicate removal, 2485 articles were considered for detailed analysis (Table I). This diverse dataset comprised 1671 original treatises, 279 review papers, 105 clinical studies (distinctly separated from the original treatises), 72 editorial materials, 228 conference proceedings papers, 63 conference abstracts, 27 advanced online publications, and 40 case reports. Analysis of the dataset revealed a discernible temporal pattern, illustrating a consistent year-on-year increase in the number of published documents (Fig. 1). Concurrently, the citation frequency of this literature exhibited a parallel upward trend, indicating a growing impact within the scientific community over time (Fig. 1). The cumulative citations for these documents reached an impressive 62247, with an average citation frequency of 25.05 times per document. A thorough examination of research directions, as depicted in Table II, illuminated the primary thematic concentrations within the dataset. Predominantly, the studies were centered on Infectious Diseases, Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Additionally, substantial engagement was observed in the domains of Immunology, Pathology, and Microbiology, signifying the interdisciplinary nature of research exploring the intricate dynamics between sepsis and the gut microbiome. These results collectively contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the study landscape,delineating the composition of the literature corpus, temporal dynamics, and thematic concentrations. Such insights are instrumental in appreciating the evolving trends and scientific contributions within the realm of sepsis and gut microbiome research.

Fig. 1.

Annual trends of publications and citations.

Table I

Type of publications on sepsis and gut microbiome.

TypePublicationsPercentage (%)*
Original articles167167.24
Reviews27911.23
Clinical trial1054.23
Meeting2289.18
Editorials722.90
Abstract632.54
Online first271.09
Case Report401.61

* Note: percentage of 2485

Table II

Research directions of publications on sepsis and gut microbiome.

DirectionsPublicationsPercentage (%)*
Infectious diseases165766.68
Gastroenterology hepatology142857.46
Biochemistry molecular biology107443.22
Immunology103941.81
Pathology95638.49
Microbiology93137.46
Nutrition dietetics91436.78
Pharmacology pharmacy87935.37
Food Science technology70828.49
Genetics heredity70328.29

* Note: percentage of 2485

3.2.
Analysis of Countries and Institutions

The examination of source countries within the literature corpus reveals substantial contributions from the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, displaying a marked prominence over other nations (Fig. 2). Notably, the United States exhibits a noteworthy lead, surpassing the combined literature output of the third to seventh-ranked countries. This underscores the significant influence wielded by these leading nations in shaping discourse on sepsis and the gut microbiome. An assessment of international collaboration scores, serving as an indicator of research cooperation enthusiasm, discloses the collaborative nature inherent in the field. The United States emerges as a key collaborator, boasting the highest cooperation score, followed by France, Germany, and other European nations (Table III). Importantly, despite China holding the eighth position in total publications, its cooperation enthusiasm ranks tenth, indicative of a more reserved engagement in collaborative research initiatives within this scientific domain. Upon analyzing the institutions contributing to the published literature (Table IV), five of the top ten research institutions are situated in the United States, with the University of California leading the cohort. France is represented by two institutions in the top ten, while the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and China each have one institution. The central cooperation score unveils the collaborative dynamics among these institutions, with the University of California demonstrating the highest enthusiasm for collaboration, followed by the University of Amsterdam and the University of Chicago. Noteworthy is the independent research stance of Southern Medical University China, ranking ninth in the number of published documents. This institution stands out for its self-reliant research endeavors, displaying limited collaboration with external entities, marking a distinctive scholarly approach to sepsis and gut microbiome research. These findings provide a grounded and professionally articulated insight into global contributions, international collaboration dynamics, and institutional engagements within the expansive field of sepsis and gut microbiome literature. Such insights enrich our understanding of the collaborative and independent scientific pursuits instrumental in advancing knowledge within this domain (Table V).

Fig. 2.

Countries in publications and cooperations.

Table III

Centrality of countries in the studies on sepsis and gut microbiome.

RanksCountriesCentrality
1USA0.36
2France0.24
3Germany0.21
4England0.20
5Italy0.17
6Netherlands0.16
7Spain0.15
8Australia0.13
9Canada0.12
10China0.11
Table IV

Top 10 institutes by number of publications on sepsis and gut microbiome.

InstitutionsPublicationsPercentage (%)*
University of California883.54
University of Amsterdam853.42
Udice French Research Universities632.54
University of Chicago602.41
Institute National De La Sante502.01
University of Michigan451.81
Harvard University391.57
Newcastle University UK351.41
Southern Medical University China341.37
University of Minnesota301.21

* Note: percentage of 2485

Table V

Top 10 institutes by centrality on sepsis and gut microbiome.

RanksInstitutionsCentrality
1University of California0.24
2University of Amsterdam0.23
3University of Chicago0.18
4Udice French Research Universities0.17
5Institut National De La Sante0.15
6University of Michigan0.14
7University of Florida0.13
8Chulalongkorn University0.12
9Northumbria University0.11
10Universidade De Sao Paulo0.11
3.3.
Author’s Analysis

Wiersinga WJ from the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands was identified as the most productive author in this field, as evident in the analysis results (Table VI). Professor Wiersinga also holds the highest centrality score (Table VII), highlighting the extensive impact of their contributions within the scholarly network. Further scrutiny reveals that Professor Wiersinga has authored a substantial number of articles on sepsis and gut microbiome, with over half published in prestigious journals such as JAMA, Lancet sub-journal, Gut, and other top-tier publications. Notably, collaborative associations among the top 10 authors include Wiersinga WJ and van der Poll T from the University of Amsterdam, and Berrington JE and Stewart CJ from Newcastle University, UK.

Table VI

Top 10 authors by number of publications on sepsis and gut microbiome.

RanksAuthorsPublicationsPercentage (%)*
1Wiersinga WJ441.77
2Alverdy John C170.68
3Berrington JE140.56
4Leelahavanichkul A150.60
5Embleton ND120.48
6van der Poll T110.44
7Stewart CJ100.40
8Dickson RP70.28
9Wang W60.24
10Haak BW60.2

* Note: percentage of 2485.

Table VII

Top 10 authors by centrality on sepsis and gut microbiom.

RanksAuthorsCentrality
1Wiersinga WJ0.26
2Alverdy John C0.23
3Leelahavanichkul A0.19
4Embleton ND0.18
5Wang YJ0.17
6Cao ZJ0.17
7Wang W0.17
8He ZY0.15
9Liu S0.14
10Li SL0.13
3.4.
Journals Analysis

The analysis of journals (Table VIII) reveals that Figshare, a prominent open data storage platform, leads in the number of publications on sepsis and gut microbiome research. Following closely are reputable academic journals, including Nutrients and Critical Care, among others. It is pertinent to note that Figshare, while a significant contributor, operates more as a data storage platform than a traditional academic journal. Among the academic journals publishing literature in this field, Gastroenterology (IF = 33.883) demonstrated the highest impact factor in 2022, with a total of 9 pertinent articles. This is followed by Critical Care, Frontiers in Immunology, and other journals, reflecting a diverse and impactful dissemination of research within the realm of sepsis and gut microbiome studies.

Table VIII

Top 10 journals by publication of literatures on sepsis and microbiome

JournalsPublicationsPercentage (%)*2022 IF
Figshare1666.67Database
Nutrients903.646.706
Critical Care813.2419.334
Plos One783.133.752
Scientific Reports732.934.996
European Nucleotide Archive682.73Database
Frontiers in Microbiology602.426.064
Frontiers in Immunology502.028.786
Pediatric Research451.823.953
International Journal of Molecular Sciences401.626.208

* Note: percentage of 2485.

3.5.
Keywords Analysis

A meticulous examination of all keywords utilized in the included literature underscores key themes prevalent in the field. The preeminent keyword is “sepsis,” reflecting its centrality in scholarly discussions. Following closely are pivotal terms such as “microbiome,” “microbiota,” and “flora,” highlighting the pronounced emphasis on microbial communities in this domain. Notably, six out of the top 10 keywords-specifically, “microbiome,” “microbiota,” “flora,” “gut microbiota,” “bacteria,” and “gastrointestinal microbiome”-essentially revolve around or intricately relate to microecology. This prevalence of microecology-centric keywords signifies the integral role of microbial interactions and ecological dynamics within the broader context of sepsis and gut microbiome research (Table IX).

Table IX

Distribution of keywords.

KeywordsFrequencyPercentage (%)*
Sepsis217487.48
Microbiome99139.88
Microbiota76530.78
Flora38215.37
Antibiotics33713.56
Gut microbiota30612.31
Immune system2188.77
Bacteria1847.40
Gut1636.56
Gastrointestinal microbiome1526.12

* Note: percentage of 2485.

4.
Discussion

The outcomes of this study affirm the increasing research focus on the association between sepsis and the microbiome over the past decade. The upward trajectory in published literature reflects the growing acknowledgment of the clinical importance of investigating infectious diseases, particularly sepsis (Coopersmith et al. 2018). The observed dominance of the United States and China in the quantity of published literature underscores their significant contributions to the field. The United States not only exhibits a substantial publication volume but also a noteworthy centrality score, indicating a considerable influence within the scholarly network. Conversely, while China demonstrates prolific publication, its lower centrality score suggests potential for increased collaborative engagement on the international stage (Rhee et al. 2017).

Analysis of research institutions reveals the prevalence of European and American entities, with the University of California emerging as a central hub for collaborative research in this field. Noteworthy contributors include Fang Min and Wiersinga WJ from the University of Amsterdam, with Prof Wiersinga leading in both publication volume and collaborative endeavors. Journal analysis indicates that while research in this field is present in authoritative journals, there is a prevalent focus on severe diseases, microbiology, and immunology publications (Wiersinga and van der Poll 2022). This thematic alignment underscores the clinical and microbiological dimensions inherent in sepsis and gut microbiome studies. Examining the microecology, our study underscores the pivotal role of gut microbiome in human health. The intricate interplay of microbial entities, including Bacteroides, Bifidobacterium, and Lactobacillus, highlights their diverse contributions to nutrient metabolism, immune function, and intestinal barrier maintenance (Schmidt et al. 2018).

In the context of sepsis, our analysis reveals distinct alterations in the gut microbiome, characterized by reduced diversity, altered abundance of key microbial groups, and overgrowth of pathogenic bacteria. This dysbiosis correlates positively with the mortality risk in patients exhibiting systemic inflammatory response syndrome and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (Shimizu et al. 2011). The use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, a common therapeutic approach in sepsis, emerges as a significant factor contributing to gut microbiome imbalance (Condotta et al. 2013). This disruption is not only related to the duration of antibiotic use but also to specific antibiotic types and/or combinations of antibiotics, such as ceftriaxone and imipenem, with implications for the risk of opportunistic infections and antibiotic-associated complications (Haak and Wiersinga 2017). Clinical strategies for mitigating gut microbiome imbalance include judicious antibiotic use, supplementation with microecological agents, early enteral nutrition, and fecal flora transplantation (He et al. 2013, Wang et al. 2019; Ramirez et al. 2020, Johnstone et al. 2021, Cheema et al. 2022). These interventions aim to preserve microbial diversity, restore ecological balance, and improve patient outcomes.

Apart from the bacterial factors in the gut microbiota, the contribution of fungus in keeping the microorganism balance is a very important aspect that should be taken into consideration. Fungal species, primarily Candida, Aspergillus, and Zygomycetes, can considerably affect the intestinal microbiome. For example, Candida albicans is often related to dysbiosis, especially in people with weakened immune systems or those who are on the long-term use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. This non-optimal situation in the microbiota causes hypoproliferation, inflammation as well as negative changes in the intestinal barrier. Besides, the Aspergillus genus, although it isn’t usually mentioned in gut health conversations, has been associated with dysbiosis in serious infections and it can disturb the microbiome community’s normal activities in the gastrointestinal tract. Recognizing the role that fungi play in these processes is critically important if we are to develop successful strategies to fight against dysbiosis in sepsis patients (Chin et al. 2020).

In addition to macroscopic tendencies found in sepsis and gut microbiome research, the discovery of the etiological agents is very important in the differential diagnosis of sepsis microbe contributors. In our bibliometric style, we did not define independent causative pathogens, but prior studies often find that bacterial species, such as Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus are common etiological factors in bacterial sepsis. These pathogens are frequently referred to disturbances in the gut microbiota, which are advantageous for the proliferation of pathogenic species and disadvantageous from the perspective of a high microbial diversity ratio. Bacteria, specifically Candida albicans, are also the predisposing factors for sepsis in cases of immunocompromised patients and they are associated with specific dysbiosis patterns in the gut microbiome (Jawhara 2022). The limitation in the bacterial and fungal etiologies can be the potential information on the dysbiosis and thus, the development of specific therapeutic strategies targeting the patient’s microbes may prove to be the solution.

While this study provides a comprehensive macroscopic overview of the literature, its limitations include the lack of in-depth analysis of individual studies, interventions, and recent advancements. Additionally, the exclusion of non-English literature from the SCI-E database introduces a potential source of omission, emphasizing the need for a more inclusive approach to capture global contributions. The surge in research on the relationship between sepsis and gut microbiome signifies a burgeoning field with evolving clinical implications. The dominance of the United States in this research landscape underscores its leadership role. Future directions should prioritize evidencebased investigations, clinical trials, and prospective studies. Enhanced international collaboration, particularly involving Chinese researchers, holds promise for advancing the understanding and management of sepsis through the lens of gut microbiome dynamics.

5.
Conclusion

Current study delves into the expanding landscape of sepsis and gut microbiome research, analyzing 2485 articles spanning diverse publication types and thematic concentrations. The temporal analysis reveals a consistent increase in publications, reflecting a burgeoning interest and impact within the scientific community. The dominance of the United States in both quantity and centrality underscores its pivotal role, with significant contributions from France, the United Kingdom, and others. Authorship analysis highlights Prof Wiersinga’s prolific output and impact, while institutional dynamics and international collaboration further enrich the scholarly network. The examination of journals and keywords elucidates the thematic focus on microbiome-related concepts. The findings underscore altered gut microbiome dynamics in patients with sepsis, influenced by factors like antibiotic use, with clinical strategies proposed for mitigation. The study’s limitations, including language exclusivity and the need for more detailed analyses, are acknowledged. Moving forward, the emphasis on evidence-based investigations, clinical trials, and international collaboration, particularly involving Chinese researchers, holds promise for advancing understanding and management in this evolving field. In essence, current study provides a nuanced and professionally articulated overview of sepsis and gut microbiome research, paving the way for future exploration and advancements in evidencebased medicine.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/am-2024-0016 | Journal eISSN: 2545-3149 | Journal ISSN: 0079-4252
Language: English, Polish
Page range: 191 - 198
Submitted on: Jul 1, 2024
|
Accepted on: Nov 1, 2024
|
Published on: Jan 29, 2025
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2025 Li Zhang, Yi Wang, Ping Li, Xiang Li, Xiangyou Yu, published by Polish Society of Microbiologists
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.