Research Hotspots and Frontiers of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Stroke: A Bibliometric Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a bibliometric analysis of research hotspots and prospects for transcranial direct current stimulation in stroke. The authors, assisted by CiteSpace, presented a comprehensive report on situation of publication and hotspots over the past decade. But there are still some concerns to consider or modify:

1. The article proposes to summarize the research hotspots and frontiers by means of bibliometric analysis (both in the title and discussion sections), but none of the presented results clearly describe the current frontier of ‘transcranial direct current stimulation in stroke’. The authors need to be aware that research frontiers are not the same as ‘strongest citation bursts’ or ‘most citation’. Summarizing frontiers should also take into account that potentially seminal results have not yet stood out in terms of citations. It is recommended to refer to the keyword analysis diagram using VOSviewer in the following articles (PMID: 33551822, 33433494), and make changes.

2. In the inclusion criteria, it is necessary to clearly describe whether the degree of compliance with the theme is determined according to the title/abstract or the content of the original text. If the principles of screening are not uniform, further explanation is required.

3. It is necessary to indicate ‘derived from CiteSpace’ below the picture originating from CiteSpace, and indicate the important parameters to be adjusted when drawing (e.g. PMID: 33551822). By the way, the wordmark of Figure 10 is too vague, it is recommended to reintegrate at least so that readers can see clearly or add a newly organized timeline (new timeline like PMID: 36276718, Figure 5).

4. In Figure 11, such as ‘hand’ ’individual’ ‘impact’ ‘model’ and other keywords that actually point to ambiguous, please explain appropriately in the article or remove such words and present more research-oriented keywords to readers.

5. The Discussion section should expand around the results, rather than restate the results as the main content. The discussion in the trend section needs to be streamlined, and the discussion in the hot and frontier sections needs to be more refined.

6. As a bibliometric analysis, there is a little bit limitations in the detailed analysis of articles and the scope of article inclusion. It could be elaborated in combination with these related articles (such as: PMID: 33551822, 33433494, 35017436, 36276718).

Author Response

This is a bibliometric analysis of research hotspots and prospects for transcranial direct current stimulation in stroke. The authors, assisted by CiteSpace, presented a comprehensive report on situation of publication and hotspots over the past decade. But there are still some concerns to consider or modify:

Response: We thank you for your valuable comments on our study. We have extensively revised the manuscript according to the raised comments. Point-by-point replies have been listed below. Corresponding revisions in the manuscript have been marked in red.

1. The article proposes to summarize the research hotspots and frontiers by means of bibliometric analysis (both in the title and discussion sections), but none of the presented results clearly describe the current frontier of ‘transcranial direct current stimulation in stroke’. The authors need to be aware that research frontiers are not the same as ‘strongest citation bursts’ or ‘most citation’. Summarizing frontiers should also take into account that potentially seminal results have not yet stood out in terms of citations. It is recommended to refer to the keyword analysis diagram using VOSviewer in the following articles (PMID: 33551822, 33433494), and make changes.

Response: Thanks for your comment. This manuscript has been revised extensively according to your constructive suggestions. We have used VOSviewer to re-analysis keywords. You can see our change in the ‘Result’ part.

2. In the inclusion criteria, it is necessary to clearly describe whether the degree of compliance with the theme is determined according to the title/abstract or the content of the original text. If the principles of screening are not uniform, further explanation is required.

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have added a clearly describe of the inclusion criteria as follows: ‘Articles and reviews related to the application of tDCS in stroke were included. The theme is determined according to the title and abstract. We excluded meeting abstracts, letters, news items, and published editorial materials. The language was restricted to English. Finally, a total of 371 studies were included .’

3. It is necessary to indicate ‘derived from CiteSpace’ below the picture originating from CiteSpace, and indicate the important parameters to be adjusted when drawing (e.g. PMID: 33551822). By the way, the wordmark of Figure 10 is too vague, it is recommended to reintegrate at least so that readers can see clearly or add a newly organized timeline (new timeline like PMID: 36276718, Figure 5).

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have revised all captions for Figures according to your suggestion. In addition, we reintegrated the Figure 10 and adjusted its clarity to make sure the wordmark of Figure 10 can be seen clearly.  

4. In Figure 11, such as ‘hand’ ’individual’ ‘impact’ ‘model’ and other keywords that actually point to ambiguous, please explain appropriately in the article or remove such words and present more research-oriented keywords to readers.

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have used VOSviewer to re-analysis keywords in the ‘Result’ part.

5. The Discussion section should expand around the results, rather than restate the results as the main content. The discussion in the trend section needs to be streamlined, and the discussion in the hot and frontier sections needs to be more refined.

Response: Thanks for your comment. This ‘Discussion’ section has been revised extensively according to your constructive suggestions. We have streamlined the trend section and refined the hot and frontier sections.

6. As a bibliometric analysis, there is a little bit limitations in the detailed analysis of articles and the scope of article inclusion. It could be elaborated in combination with these related articles (such as: PMID: 33551822, 33433494, 35017436, 36276718).

Response: Thanks for your comment. By referring to the documents you suggested, we have made some detailed modifications to our ‘Limitation’section.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present a systematic bibliometric analysis by using CiteSpace to measure the studies focused on Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) in stroke in the last 10 years. The results showed that the global trend of the published papers on tDCS in stroke increased from 15 to 68. In addittion, the global trend of citation amounts increased from 24 to 1690, indicating that tDCS has received more attention in the field of stroke in recent years. The most influential author, institution, journal, and country was Fregni F, League of European Research Universities, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, and the USA, respectively. The keywords and references analysis indicated that current studies related to tDCS in stroke focus on post-stroke aphasia, tDCS combined with robotic therapy, anatomical parameter, and safety.

 

The topic analyzed is relevant and the conclusions are consistent with the arguments presented. The tables and figures are correct.

The study is interesting but some aspects of the manuscript may be improved by taking into account the following points: 

1.     Describe the acronyms used (ex: tCDS, in Abstract)

2.     The authors’ view on the future direction of research on this topic should be added in the text. 

3.     Please, rewrite the bibliographic references according to the Brain Sciences instructions 

 

 

Author Response

The authors present a systematic bibliometric analysis by using CiteSpace to measure the studies focused on Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) in stroke in the last 10 years. The results showed that the global trend of the published papers on tDCS in stroke increased from 15 to 68. In addittion, the global trend of citation amounts increased from 24 to 1690, indicating that tDCS has received more attention in the field of stroke in recent years. The most influential author, institution, journal, and country was Fregni F, League of European Research Universities, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, and the USA, respectively. The keywords and references analysis indicated that current studies related to tDCS in stroke focus on post-stroke aphasia, tDCS combined with robotic therapy, anatomical parameter, and safety.

 Response: We thank you for your valuable comments on our study. We have extensively revised the manuscript according to the raised comments. Point-by-point replies have been listed below. Corresponding revisions in the manuscript have been marked in red.

The topic analyzed is relevant and the conclusions are consistent with the arguments presented. The tables and figures are correct.

The study is interesting but some aspects of the manuscript may be improved by taking into account the following points: 

1. Describe the acronyms used (ex: tCDS, in Abstract)

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have described the acronyms we used.

2. The authors’ view on the future direction of research on this topic should be added in the text.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have added our view on the future direction of research in the ‘Discussion’ section.

3. Please, rewrite the bibliographic references according to the Brain Sciences instructions 

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have rewritten the bibliographic references according to the Brain Sciences instructions 

Reviewer 3 Report

The present study is a systematic bibliometric analysis about transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Although the manuscript is well written, it does not appear to be very attractive from a scientific point of view. Perhaps expanding the scope of the work as well as expanding the databases analyzed and the pathologies treated could be of support for the programming of new research.

Author Response

The present study is a systematic bibliometric analysis about transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Although the manuscript is well written, it does not appear to be very attractive from a scientific point of view. Perhaps expanding the scope of the work as well as expanding the databases analyzed and the pathologies treated could be of support for the programming of new research.

Response: Thanks for your comment. We added VOSviewer software to analyze the included literature, we also recombed the results of the article, and rewrote it in the discussion part. We hope our revision will be approved by you.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The current version is fine.

Author Response

The current version is fine.

Response: Thanks for your comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made the previously recommended changes and responded the criticisms. Thank you for making these changes.

 

Author Response

The authors have made the previously recommended changes and responded the criticisms. Thank you for making these changes.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

I suggest linguistic revision by a native English speaker

Author Response

I suggest linguistic revision by a native English speaker

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. According to your advice, this manuscript was revised for proper English language, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall style by a native English speaker. We hope the revised version can get support from you.