title: Web 2.0 applications in medicine: trends and topics in the literature.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The World Wide Web has changed research habits, and these changes were further expanded when "Web 2.0" became popular in 2005. Bibliometrics is a helpful tool used for describing patterns of publication, for interpreting progression over time, and the geographical distribution of research in a given field. Few studies employing bibliometrics, however, have been carried out on the correlative nature of scientific literature and Web 2.0.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this bibliometric analysis was to provide an overview of Web 2.0 implications in the biomedical literature. The objectives were to assess the growth rate of literature, key journals, authors, and country contributions, and to evaluate whether the various Web 2.0 applications were expressed within this biomedical literature, and if so, how.
  
  
  METHODS
  A specific query with keywords chosen to be representative of Web 2.0 applications was built for the PubMed database. Articles related to Web 2.0 were downloaded in Extensible Markup Language (XML) and were processed through developed hypertext preprocessor (PHP) scripts, then imported to Microsoft Excel 2010 for data processing.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 1347 articles were included in this study. The number of articles related to Web 2.0 has been increasing from 2002 to 2012 (average annual growth rate was 106.3% with a maximum of 333% in 2005). The United States was by far the predominant country for authors, with 514 articles (54.0%; 514/952). The second and third most productive countries were the United Kingdom and Australia, with 87 (9.1%; 87/952) and 44 articles (4.6%; 44/952), respectively. Distribution of number of articles per author showed that the core population of researchers working on Web 2.0 in the medical field could be estimated at approximately 75. In total, 614 journals were identified during this analysis. Using Bradford's law, 27 core journals were identified, among which three (Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, Journal of Medical Internet Research, and Nucleic Acids Research) produced more than 35 articles related to Web 2.0 over the period studied. A total of 274 words in the field of Web 2.0 were found after manual sorting of the 15,878 words appearing in title and abstract fields for articles. Word frequency analysis reveals "blog" as the most recurrent, followed by "wiki", "Web 2.0", "social media", "Facebook", "social networks", "blogger", "cloud computing", "Twitter", and "blogging". All categories of Web 2.0 applications were found, indicating the successful integration of Web 2.0 into the biomedical field.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study shows that the biomedical community is engaged in the use of Web 2.0 and confirms its high level of interest in these tools. Therefore, changes in the ways researchers use information seem to be far from over.
authors.affiliation: Media Normandie, Normandy University, University of Caen Basse-Normandie, Caen Cedex, France. boudry@enc.sorbonne.fr.
authors.forename: Christophe
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8730-8731
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Boudry
keywords: Blogging; Health information management; Internet; Medical Informatics; Medline; Social media; bibliometrics
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2008 Aug 06;10(3):e23
references.pmid: 18682374
references.citation: Nature. 1970 Jun 6;226(5249):922-3
references.pmid: 5467708
references.citation: Diagn Pathol. 2011 Mar 30;6 Suppl 1:S26
references.pmid: 21489197
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2010 Jun 11;12 (2):e18
references.pmid: 20542857
references.citation: BMJ. 2006 Dec 23;333(7582):1283-4
references.pmid: 17185707
references.citation: J Med Internet Res. 2008 Aug 25;10(3):e22
references.pmid: 18725354
references.citation: BMC Infect Dis. 2010 Mar 05;10:47
references.pmid: 20205717
references.citation: Lung Cancer. 2010 Nov;70(2):129-35
references.pmid: 20170978
references.citation: Med Sci (Paris). 2012 Jun-Jul;28(6-7):653-8
references.pmid: 22805143
references.citation: J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Oct;93(4):450-8
references.pmid: 16239941
references.citation: Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2010 Sep 13;368(1926):4039-56
references.pmid: 20679121
references.citation: World Hosp Health Serv. 2005;41(1):32-40
references.pmid: 15881824
references.citation: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009 Jan 21;9:7
references.pmid: 19159472
references.citation: Science. 2008 Mar 7;319(5868):1349-50
references.pmid: 18323442
references.citation: Nature. 1969 Mar 29;221(5187):1205-7
references.pmid: 5773831
references.citation: J Med Libr Assoc. 2012 Apr;100(2):135-8
references.pmid: 22514511
references.citation: Health Info Libr J. 2012 Jun;29(2):90-109
references.pmid: 22630358