Comparison of nanotechnology research for coronaviruses and influenza from 2000 to 2022
Source abstract
Abstract
In a race to manage the COVID-19 pandemic, innovations in nanomedicine were crucial for vaccine development. This study compares nanotechnology research on coronaviruses (nanocovid) and nanotechnology research on influenza (nanoflu) to understand the unique characteristics and drivers of nanocovid research. The main differences between nanoflu and nanocovid relate to the number of publications. We find that from 2000 to the summer of 2022, there were 3445 nanocovid articles and 1643 nanoflu articles. Moreover, from 2000 to 2018, there was limited nanocovid research, despite prominent coronaviruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Nanocovid research gained substantial momentum only during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nanoflu research, on the other hand, had consistent but slow growth since 2000. Nanocovid and nanoflu researches are similar in many aspects. The most active countries and institutions researching nanocovid and nanoflu are similar, the research is published in similar journals, and both fields use similar keywords. Despite the severity of influenza on global health and well-being, it receives little attention from nanotechnology researchers. Coronavirus research only got significant attention after the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings show that factors other than disease severity drive research portfolios.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research · COVID-19 epidemiological studies · SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (54)
Show source-provided references
1. Chauhan G et al (2020) Nanotechnology for COVID-19: therapeutics and vaccine research. ACS Nano 14(7):7760–778210.1021/acsnano.0c04006 ↗
2. Ziqi W et al (2022) Nanotechnology‐facilitated vaccine development during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Exploration 2(5):2021008210.1002/EXP.20210082 ↗
3. National Science and Technology Council (2022) The national nanotechnology initiative supplement to the president’s 2022 Budget. https://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/NNI-FY22-Budget-Supplement.pdf. Accessed 29 Jun 2023
4. Mulabbi EN, Tweyongyere R, Byarugaba DK (2021) The history of the emergence and transmission of human coronaviruses. Onderstepoort J Vet Res 88(1):187210.4102/ojvr.v88i1.1872 ↗
5. Chiu WT, Huang JS, Ho YS (2004) Bibliometric analysis of severe acute respiratory syndrome-related research in the beginning stage. Scientometrics 61(1):69–7710.1023/B:SCIE.0000037363.49623.28 ↗
6. World Health Organization (2023) MERS situation update, 2023. https://www.emro.who.int/health-topics/mers-cov/mers-outbreaks.html. Accessed 29 Jun 2023
7. Prime H, Wade M, Browne DT (2020) Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am Psychol 75(5):63110.1037/amp0000660 ↗
8. Hodder A (2020) New technology, work and employment in the era of COVID-19: reflecting on legacies of research. New Technol Work Employ 35(3):262–275). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.1217310.1111/ntwe.12173 ↗
9. Greer SL, King EJ, da Fonseca M, Andre Peralta-Santos E (2020) The comparative politics of COVID-19: the need to understand government responses. Glob Public Health 15(9):1413–1416. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2020.1783340?scroll=top&needAccess=true&role=tab&aria-labelledby=full-article10.1080/17441692.2020.1783340?scroll=top&needAccess=true&role=tab&aria-labelledby=full-article ↗
10. Dattani S, Spooner F (2022) How many people die from the flu. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/influenza-deaths. Accessed 29 Jun 2023
11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2022) What is the difference between influenza (flu) and COVID-19? https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm. Accessed 29 Jun 2023
12. Iuliano AD, Roguski KM, Chang HH, Muscatello DJ, Palekar R, Tempia S, Cohen C, Gran JM, Schanzer D, Cowling BJ, Wu P, Kyncl J, Ang LW, Park M, Redlberger-Fritz M, Yu H, Espenhain L, Krishnan A, Emukule G, … Mustaquim D (2018) Estimates of global seasonal influenza-associated respiratory mortality: a modelling study. Lancet 391(10127):1285–1300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33293-210.1016/S0140-6736(17)33293-2 ↗
13. Coronavirus deaths (2023) Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths. Accessed 29 Jun 2023
14. Fedson DS, Hirota Y, Shin HK, Cambillard PE, Kiely J, Ambrosch F, ... Strikas RA (1997) Influenza vaccination in 22 developed countries: an update to 1995. Vaccine 15(14):1506–151110.1016/S0264-410X(97)00091-1 ↗
15. Ganaie SA, Wani JA (2021) Bibliometric analysis and visualization of Nanotechnology Research Field. COLLNET J Scientometr Inform Manag 15(2):445–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2021.200878010.1080/09737766.2021.2008780 ↗
16. Godin B (2006) On the origins of bibliometrics. Scientometrics 69(1):109–13310.1007/s11192-006-0086-0 ↗
17. Kokol P, Blažun Vošner H, Završnik J (2021) Application of bibliometrics in medicine: a historical bibliometrics analysis. Health Inform Libr J 38(2):125–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.1229510.1111/hir.12295 ↗
18. Takeda Y, Mae S, Kajikawa Y, Matsushima K (2009) Nanobiotechnology as an emerging research domain from nanotechnology: a bibliometric approach. Scientometrics 80(1):23–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1897-310.1007/s11192-007-1897-3 ↗
19. Chen K, Guan J (2011) A bibliometric investigation of research performance in emerging nanobiopharmaceuticals. J Informetri 5(2):233–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.00710.1016/j.joi.2010.10.007 ↗
20. Wang J, Shapira P (2011) Funding acknowledgement analysis: an enhanced tool to investigate research sponsorship impacts: the case of nanotechnology. Scientometrics 87(3):563–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0362-510.1007/s11192-011-0362-5 ↗
21. Woodson T, Rodriguez V (2019) Analysis of inequality in nanomedicine using clinical trials and disease burden. Nanomedicine 14(13):1745–1757. https://doi.org/10.2217/nnm-2018-045610.2217/nnm-2018-0456 ↗
22. Cozzens SE, Cortes R, Soumonni O, Woodson T (2013) Nanotechnology and the millennium development goals: water, energy, and agri-food. J Nanopart Res 15(11):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-2001-y10.1007/s11051-013-2001-y ↗
23. Maclurcan DC (2010) Nanotechnology and the hope for a more equitable world: a mixed methods study. Dissertation. University of Technology Sydney
24. Kostoff RN, Stump JA, Johnson D, Murday JS, Lau CGY, Tolles WM (2006) The structure and infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature. J Nanoparticle Res 8(3–4):301–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-005-9035-810.1007/s11051-005-9035-8 ↗
25. Liu X, Zhang P, Li X, Chen H, Dang Y, Larson C, Roco M, Wang X (2009) Trends for nanotechnology development in China, Russia, and India. J Nanopart Res 11(8):1845–1866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9698-710.1007/s11051-009-9698-7 ↗
26. Guan J, Ma N (2007) China’s emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology a comparative bibliometric study of several nanoscience ‘giants.’ Res Policy 36(6):880–886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.02.00410.1016/j.respol.2007.02.004 ↗
27. Zyoud SH (2016) Global research trends of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus: a bibliometric analysis. BMC Infect Dis 16(1): https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1600-510.1186/s12879-016-1600-5 ↗
28. Wang Z, Chen Y, Cai G, Jiang Z, Liu K, Chen B, Jiang J, Gu H (2016) A bibliometric analysis of PubMed literature on Middle East respiratory syndrome. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph1306058310.3390/ijerph13060583 ↗
29. Aristovnik A, Ravšelj D, Umek L (2020) A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 across science and social science research landscape. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12(21):1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1221913210.3390/su12219132 ↗
30. Dehghanbanadaki H, Seif F, Vahidi Y, Razi F, Hashemi E, Khoshmirsafa M, Aazami H (2020) Bibliometric analysis of global scientific research on coronavirus (COVID-19). M J Islam Repub Iran 34(1). https://doi.org/10.34171/mjiri.34.5110.34171/mjiri.34.51 ↗
31. Farooq R, Rehman S, Ashiq M, Siddique N, Ahmad S (2021) Bibliometric analysis of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) literature published in Web of Science 2019–2020. J Fam Commun Med 28(1). https://doi.org/10.4103/jfcm.jfcm_332_2010.4103/jfcm.jfcm_332_20 ↗
32. Wang P, Tian D (2021) Bibliometric analysis of global scientific research on COVID-19. J Biosaf Biosecur 3(1):4–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobb.2020.12.00210.1016/j.jobb.2020.12.002 ↗
33. Zhai F, Zhai Y, Cong C, Song T, Xiang R, Feng T, Liang Z, Zeng Y, Yang J, Yang J, Liang J (2020). Research progress of coronavirus based on bibliometric analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph1711376610.3390/ijerph17113766 ↗
34. Fan J, Gao Y, Zhao N, Dai R, Zhang H, Feng X, Shi G, Tian J, Chen C, Hambly BD, Bao S (2020) Bibliometric analysis on COVID-19: a comparison of research between English and Chinese studies. Front Public Health 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.0047710.3389/fpubh.2020.00477 ↗
35. Jacimovic J, Jakovljevic A, Nagendrababu V, Fergus Duncan H, DummerDummer PMH (2021) A bibliometric analysis of the dental scientific literature on COVID-19. Clin Oral Investig 25:6171–6183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03916-6/Published10.1007/s00784-021-03916-6/Published ↗
36. Lunardi CN, Subrinho FL, de Freitas Barros MP, Lima RC, de Queiroz Melo ACM, Barbosa D de M, de Negreiros LG, Rodrigues BS, Neiva MS, Linhares JVR, Dalla Costa GF, Gomes A de J (2022) Bibliometric analysis: nanotechnology and COVID-19. Curr Topics Med Chem 22(8):629–638. https://doi.org/10.2174/156802662266622030712544610.2174/1568026622666220307125446 ↗
37. Moulick A, Richtera L, Milosavljevic V, Cernei N, Haddad Y, Zitka O, ... Adam V (2017) Advanced nanotechnologies in avian influenza: current status and future trends–a review. Anal Chim Acta 983:42–5310.1016/j.aca.2017.06.045 ↗
38. Liverani M, Song K, Rudge JW (2023) Mapping emerging trends and South-South cooperation in regional knowledge networks: a bibliometric analysis of avian influenza research in Southeast Asia. J Int Dev. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.374610.1002/jid.3746 ↗
39. Castillo-Pérez JJ, Muñoz-Valera L, García-Gómez F, Mejía-Aranguré JM (2015) Análisis bibliométrico de la producción científi ca sobre la infl uenza en México. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 53(3):294–301
40. Chen N, Liu Y, Cheng Y, Liu L, Yan Z, Tao L, Guo X, Luo Y, Yan A (2015) Technology resource, distribution, and development characteristics of global influenza virus vaccine: a patent bibliometric analysis. PLoS One 10(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.013695310.1371/journal.pone.0136953 ↗
41. Sweileh WM, Al-Jabi SW, Sawalha AF, Abutaha AS, Zyoud SH (2017) Bibliometric analysis of worldwide publications on antimalarial drug resistance (2006–2015). Malaria Research and Treatment. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/642941010.1155/2017/6429410 ↗
42. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G (2008) Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J 22(2):338–34210.1096/fj.07-9492LSF ↗
43. NCBI (2022) PubMed overview. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/about/. Accessed 29 Jun 2023
44. Arora SK, Porter AL, Youtie J, Shapira P (2012) Capturing new developments in an emerging technology: an updated search strategy for identifying nanotechnology research outputs. Scientometrics 95(1):351–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0903-610.1007/s11192-012-0903-6 ↗
45. Aria M, Cuccurullo C (2017) bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Informetr 11(4):959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.00710.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007. (Elsevier)10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.00710.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007 ↗
46. Linnenluecke MK, Marrone M, Singh AK (2020) Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Aust J Manag 45(2):175–194. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1177/031289621987767810.1177/0312896219877678 ↗
47. Benoit K, Watanabe K, Wang H, Nulty P, Obeng A, Müller S, Matsuo A (2018) quanteda: an R package for the quantitative analysis of textual data. J Open Source Softw 3(30):774. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.0077410.21105/joss.00774 ↗
48. Ramos J (2003) Using TF-IDF to determine word relevance in document queries. Proc First Instr Conf Mach Learn 242:29–48
49. BBC News (2022) Covid map: coronavirus cases, deaths, vaccinations by country. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51235105. Accessed 29 Jun 2023
50. Soteriades ES, Falagas ME (2005) Comparison of amount of biomedical research originating from the European Union and the United States. BMJ 331(7510):192–194. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7510.19210.1136/bmj.331.7510.192 ↗
51. Hou L, Pan Y, Zhu JJH (2021) Impact of scientific, economic, geopolitical, and cultural factors on international research collaboration. J Inform 15(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.10119410.1016/j.joi.2021.101194 ↗
52. Monroe-White T, Woodson TS (2016) Inequalities in scholarly knowledge: public value failures and their impact on global science. Afr J Sci Technol Innov Dev 8(2):178–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2016.114720410.1080/20421338.2016.1147204 ↗
53. Hart P, Farrar J (2021) The influenza vaccines roadmap – a better future through improved influenza vaccines. Vaccine 39(45):6570–6572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.09.071. (Elsevier Ltd)10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.09.071 ↗
54. Bellis de N de (2009) Bibliometrics and citation analysis: from the science of citation to cybermetrics. The Scarecrow Press