Peer-review started: November 19, 2022
First decision: December 13, 2022
Revised: December 17, 2022
Accepted: February 22, 2023
Article in press: February 22, 2023
Published online: March 9, 2023
Prostate artery embolization (PAE) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a new technique hardly past its infancy. Past studies have evaluated the utility, indications, efficacy and basic science of the procedure. Although there have been some systematic studies, a bibliometric review has not been conducted prior to this study.
This bibliometric review will analyze the 50 most cited articles with regards to PAE for BPH. This will show the strengths and weaknesses of the current body of literature, where said literature is being produced, and will attempt to quantify the growing acceptance of this procedure by the field of urology.
By performing a bibliometric review, it is hoped that avenues for future expansion of the literature are elucidated. This will allow future researchers to better pursue novel and helpful research, rather than studies similar to those that have already been conducted and are well-respected.
The bibliometric review, while popular in many fields, has not seen the same level of acceptance in the fields of interventional radiology or urology. As described previously, PAE for BPH is relatively cutting-edge and the literature on the subject is not yet well-established. Therefore, it is unsurprising that this study represents the first bibliometric analysis of PAE for BPH.
The top 50 articles on PAE for BPH were all written within the last two decades, with a heavy bias towards the last decade. Although only 20% of these articles were published in urology journals, those that were published within these journals were significantly newer than their non-urologically published counterparts. The C level of evidence was the most common level represented. Future research should include higher evidence level studies (comparative randomized control trials and meta-analyses) and may be more likely to be accepted into urology journals.
The methodology of applying a bibliometric review to PAE for BPH is a completely novel endeavor. This theory proposes the idea that the literature for PAE for BPH is young but growing. Additionally, our results suggest that PAE for BPH is steadily gaining greater acceptance within the field of urology.
Future research should be directed towards high evidence level studies. This will steadily increase the evidence level seen by future bibliometric reviews as would be expected in a young but rapidly expanding field.