Open Access

Bibliometric analysis of publications on Campylobacter: (2000–2015)

  • Waleed M. Sweileh1Email author,
  • Samah W. Al-Jabi2,
  • Ansam F. Sawalha1,
  • Adham S. AbuTaha1 and
  • Sa’ed H. Zyoud2
Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition201635:39

DOI: 10.1186/s41043-016-0076-7

Received: 19 June 2016

Accepted: 22 November 2016

Published: 29 November 2016

Abstract

Background

Campylobacter species are widespread zoonotic pathogens. Campylobacter jejuni causes a form of gastroenteritis called campylobacteriosis. Campylobacter drug resistance is considered a serious threat. In order to better understand national and international research output on Campylobacter, we conducted this bibliometric overview of publications on Campylobacter. This study can be used to assess extent of interaction and response of researchers, food regulators, and health policy makers to global burden of campylobacateriosis.

Methods

Scopus database was used to retrieve publications with the following keywords (Campylobacter/campylobacteriosis, C. jejuni, C. coli). The study period was set from 2000 to 2015. All types of journal documents, excluding errata, were considered. Bibliometric indicators such as annual growth of publications, country contribution, international collaboration, and citation analysis were presented. The quality of retrieved data was indirectly assessed by Hirsch index and impact factor of journals.

Results

A total of 5522 documents were retrieved with median (Q1–Q3) citations of 9 (2–23) and h-index of 113. Annual number of publications showed a fluctuating increase. The core leading journals were Applied and Environmental Microbiology journal and Journal of Food Protection with 246 (4.46%) publications for each. The USA (1309; 23.6%) was the most productive country while Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (150; 2.7%) was the most productive institution. Half of the top ten productive countries were European. France had the lowest percentage (33.5%) of articles with international collaboration while Netherlands (57.7%) had the highest percentage of articles with international collaboration. Approximately half (50.1%) of retrieved articles were published in journals under the subject area of “immunology/microbiology”. Main themes in highly cited articles were molecular biology/genetics and public health burden of campylobacteriosis. There were 728 (13.1%) articles on campylobacter-related drug resistance, and the top cited articles focused mainly on increasing resistance to quinolones and fluoroquinolones.

Conclusions

There was a clear increase in number of publications on Campylobacter. Rational use of antimicrobials in humans, poultry, and animals is highly recommended. International collaboration is highly required particularly in implementing new diagnostic screening technologies to minimize global health burden of Campylobacter and ensure food safety.

Keywords

Campylobacter Bibliometrics

Background

Campylobacter species are zoonotic pathogens [1]. Many animals and birds, particularly broiler chickens, carry Campylobacter asymptomatically and shed the microorganism in their feces [2]. Campylobacter jejuni is the most important species of Campylobacter. The pathogen is transmitted to people mainly through eating undercooked poultry meat or from contaminated food or animal products [3]. C. jejuni has been implicated in a form of gastroenteritis called campylobacteriosis [4]. People with campylobacteriosis will have diarrhea, cramping, and fever within few days of exposure to Campylobacter [57]. Asymptomatic Campylobacter infections are usually common and endemic in developing regions like Middle East, Africa, and South Asia, with children being most affected [810]. However, asymptomatic Campylobacter infections are uncommon in developed regions [11].

The exact incidence of campylobacteriosis at the global and national levels is poorly known. However, the past decade has witnessed an increase in global incidence of campylobacteriosis [7, 12]. A survey study on foodborne illnesses in the USA indicated that 9% of these illnesses were caused by Campylobacter compared to 58% for norovirus [13]. In the USA, Campylobacter is the most common bacterial cause of diarrheal illness [14]. It is also estimated that Campylobacter affects over one million people every year causing death in 76 patients every year in the USA [15]. In the UK, it has been reported that campylobacter affects an estimated half a million people annually and kills approximately 100 [16]. In the UK, the reported incidence of campylobacteriosis was estimated to be 9.3 per 1000 person-years while that in Netherlands was 5.8 per 1000 person-years [1719].

In response to worldwide concern of foodborne gastroenteritis caused by C. jejuni, World Health Organization (WHO) is developing policies that will further promote the safety of entire food chain [20]. Campylobacteriosis is usually a self-limiting disease. However, in certain cases, antibiotics such as macrolides or flouroquinolones might be needed. Unfortunately, worldwide reports of drug-resistant Campylobacter in humans, poultry, and food have been published which threatens our goal of treating millions of people around the world [2126]. The CDC considers Campylobacter drug resistance as a serious threat [27].

There are several published bibliometric studies on specific pathogenic bacteria or gastrointestinal diseases, or zoonosis in general [2833]. However, none was carried out about Campylobacter and its related drug resistance profile. Therefore, we carried out this bibliometric analysis to assess worldwide research productivity on Campylobacter. In specific, the following bibliometric indicators will be presented in this study: annual growth of publications, citation analysis, country and institutional contribution, highly cited articles, international collaboration, and journals most active in publishing research on Campylobacter.

This study is in line with the WHO recommendations in its latest report on campylobacteriosis in which the panel of consultation experts recommended several actions to be taken to better understand and control Campylobacter [34]. Furthermore, diarrheal diseases are considered to have major global burden, and research in this area is needed [35]. This study will be important for researchers, clinicians, and health policy makers in order to adopt stringent policies regarding veterinary practices, food processing, antibiotic use, and preventive measures to control campylobacteriosis. Furthermore, this bibliometric analysis can assess areas of national and international research strengths, highlight knowledge and evidence gaps, provide a dataset of institutional and individual expertise which explore different disciplines covering campylobacter-related health research.

Methods

For the purpose of this study, the authors chose Scopus database (https://www.scopus.com) to retrieve all possible documents related to Campylobacter. Of course, the choice of Scopus was based on the understanding of the authors that it is the largest and most comprehensive database [36]. Furthermore, Scopus has been previously used in many published bibliometric studies [3742].

The search strategy used in this study consisted of several steps. The first step was finding the correct and comprehensive keywords. For the purpose of this study, we use the following keywords: Campylobacter* or “C. jejuni” or “C. coli”. The asterisk was used in search query to retrieve documents with keywords such as Campylobacter or campylobacteriosis. The keywords “C. jejuni” and “C. coli” were used in search query because some publications might include the abbreviation name instead of full name, and therefore, these terms were used in search query. Quotation marks were used to increase accuracy of search query. Keywords were used in title search rather than title/abstract search. The title search will yield minimum false positive documents, and therefore, it is an accurate approach. However, the title/ abstract search will yield many false positive results in which the main focus is not on Campylobacter per se [4351]. It is true that “title search” might lead to loss of some documents (false negative), but the error (false positive) obtained by “abstract search” will be greater. In this study, the authors tried the title/abstract search and title search scenarios and found that there were 3306 document differences between the two scenarios. Manual review by authors of top 100 cited articles of these 3306 documents showed that Campylobacter keyword was mentioned in these articles as a marginal keyword rather than an essential part of the article itself. Based on this, the authors decided to go with the title search rather than the title/ abstract search.

The second step in the search strategy was to limit the search query to the required specifications. In this study, the search query was limited to study period between years 2000 and 2015. This is easily done because Scopus allows researchers to specify the time period for the search query. Scopus also lists the type of retrieved documents, e.g., journal articles or books. In this study, only journal articles were included in the study while non-journal articles such as books and book chapters were excluded. Finally, some journal articles were actually just corrections of mistakes in previously published articles. Such corrections (errata documents) were excluded because they do not represent a publication. Figure 1 shows a scheme of the steps followed to retrieve data pertaining to this study. In each step, the total number of documents retrieved was mentioned.
Fig. 1

A scheme for the method used to retrieve campylobacter-related articles in Scopus

Scopus has a function called languages. In this function, the frequency of articles written in English or any other languages is listed. No articles were excluded based on language. Based on Scopus policy, all published articles indexed in Scopus must have an English abstract. Therefore, even articles with non-English language such as Chinese do have an English title and abstract that facilitates content analysis.

The third step after obtaining the required documents was to analyze the data to provide bibliometric indicators. One of these bibliometric indicators is national research productivity and extent of international collaboration. Scopus provides automatic country analysis for any retrieved data. Scopus has a side bar with functions that can help researchers analyze data and obtain the required indictors. One of these functions is country affiliation. In Scopus, publications can be divided into two types: (1) single country publications (SCP) which represent inter-country publication because the authors of the publication belong to different countries. Other bibliometric indicators to be obtained from retrieved data include the most active institutions, journals, and authors. Furthermore, retrieved data can be categorized based on subject areas. This function is available in Scopus side bar in which documents are categorized based on the scope of the journal publishing that document. For example, subject area “medicine” which includes all articles published in journals within the scope of medicine. The same applies to subject area “Biochemistry” and other subject areas. All these bibliometric indicators can be obtained from Scopus directly by using the bar side functions of Scopus which include functions such as intuition, author, and journals.

Strength and impact of publications which represents quality is difficult to measure in a direct way. However, several indicators could be used to evaluate the strength and quality of publications in an indirect way. Such indirect quality indicators include the total number of citations received, average number of citations per article, Hirsch index (h-index), percentage of highly cited articles, and impact factor (IF) of journals publishing the documents of interest. h-index was originally developed to assess and rank researchers [52]. However, h-index can be used to rank countries and academic institutions [52]. In this study, h-index was obtained directly from Scopus database while IF was obtained from the Journal Citation Reports 2015 published by Thompson Reuters [53].

The standard competition ranking (SCR) was used for ranking purposes of most productive (active) countries, institutions, journals, and authors. Graphs were created using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (SPSS for windows, 21) while tables were created using Microsoft Excel. Ethical approval of this study was not required by the Institutional Review Board since no human subjects or data were involved. All data analyses were carried out on October 25th, 2016. The number of publications retrieved in this study can be retrieved by other researchers with high reproducibility using the search query shown in Fig. 1. Furthermore, the excel sheet of retrieved articles is attached for those who are interested (annex 1).

Results

General information

The search query yielded 5552 journal articles (Fig. 1). A total of 5160 (92.9%) articles were written in English while the remaining articles were written in non-English, such as Spanish (72, 1.3%), German (58, 1.0%), Polish (52, 0.9%), Chinese (51, 0.9%), and French (41, 0.7%). A total of 4889 (88.0%) articles were research articles while the remaining were review articles (294, 5.3%), letters (164, 3.0%), conference papers (71, 1.3%), notes (58, 1.0%), short survey articles (35, 0.6%), articles in press (27, 0.5%), and editorials (14, 0.3%).

Growth of publications and citation analysis

The annual number of publications showed a fluctuating rise with time and reached a maximum of 448 articles in 2014. There was a twofold increase in the number of publications during the study period. The total number of citations for retrieved articles was 110,160, an average ± standard deviation of 19.8 ± 38.5 citations per article. The median (interquartile range) of the number of citations received was nine (2–23). The h-index of retrieved articles was 113, meaning that at 113 documents of retrieved articles were cited at least 113 times, and this number might increase with time. Table 1 shows the annual number of publications from year 2000 to 2015 along with citation analysis for each year. As expected, the average number of citations per article was highest (48.6) for old articles, those published in year 2000, and was lowest (1.5) for new articles, those published in year 2015.
Table 1

Annual number of publications and citations on Campylobacter (2000–2015)

Year

Number of publications

% N = 5552

TC

C/A

2015

383

6.9

587

1.5

2014

448

8.1

1575

3.5

2013

435

7.8

29,19

6.7

2012

386

7.0

3700

9.6

2011

408

7.3

4978

12.2

2010

403

7.3

5639

14.0

2009

392

7.1

6476

16.5

2008

359

6.5

6826

19.0

2007

384

6.9

9346

24.3

2006

351

6.3

8276

23.6

2005

338

6.1

9912

29.3

2004

287

5.2

9582

33.4

2003

295

5.3

10,525

35.7

2002

239

4.3

9780

40.9

2001

256

4.6

10,630

41.5

2000

188

3.4

9138

48.6

TC total citations, C/A number of citations per article calculated by dividing the total number of citations retrieved for each year by the total number of publications for that year

Subject areas

Retrieved documents were published in journals that belong to different subject areas. The majority (2783, 50.1%) was published in journals under the subject area of “immunology and microbiology”. Other common subject areas encountered were “medicine” (2471, 44.5%), “agricultural and biological science” (1625, 29.3%), and “biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology” (1496, 26.9%). It should be noted here that there is an overlap in subject areas. For example, a certain specific journal could fit in more than two categories such as medicine and immunology/microbiology. Therefore, the sum of the percentage of all subject areas exceeded 100%. Table 2 shows the top ten subject areas of retrieved articles. The subject area “engineering” represents articles published mainly in the journal of International Journal of Food Microbiology. The subject area “chemistry” represents articles published in diverse journals that discuss chemical aspects of campylobacter microorganism.
Table 2

Top ten subject areas of publications on campylobacter (2000–2015)

SCRa

Subject area

Frequency

% N = 5552

1st

Immunology and microbiology

2783

50.1

2nd

Medicine

2471

44.5

3rd

Agricultural and biological sciences

1624

29.3

4th

Biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology

1496

26.9

5th

Veterinary

667

12.0

6th

Environmental science

437

7.9

7th

Pharmacology, toxicology, and pharmaceutics

185

3.3

8th

Engineering

130

2.3

9th

Chemistry

102

1.8

10th

Neuroscience

83

1.5

Equal countries were given the same ranking number, and then a gap is left in the ranking numbers

a SCR standard competition ranking

Most productive (active) countries

Countries that were most productive (active) in publishing documents on campylobacter were listed in Table 3. The USA was the most productive country (1309, 23.6%) followed by UK (829, 14.9%) and Canada (472; 8.5%). However, Netherlands ranked first (34.3) followed by UK (32.7) and Denmark (32.2) when countries were ranked based on the mean number of citations per article. Six countries in the top ten productive countries were in Europe. A total of 352 (6.3%) articles were authored or co-authored by all African and Middle Eastern countries. France had the lowest percentage (33.5%) of articles with international authors while Netherlands (57.7%) had the highest percentage of articles with international authors (Table 3).
Table 3

Top ten productive (active) countries in publishing articles on Campylobacter (2000–2015)

SCR

Country

Frequency

% N = 5552

TC

C/A

SCP

Percent

MCP

Percent

1st

USA

1309

23.6

36,321

27.7

847

64.7

462

35.3

2nd

UK

829

14.9

27,082

32.7

468

56.5

361

43.5

3rd

Canada

472

8.5

12,526

26.5

252

53.4

220

46.6

4th

Japan

310

5.6

4508

14.5

178

57.4

132

42.6

5th

Germany

275

5.0

4606

16.7

165

60.0

110

40.0

6th

Denmark

258

4.6

8315

32.2

143

55.4

115

44.6

7th

Netherlands

239

4.3

8199

34.3

101

42.3

138

57.7

8th

France

218

3.9

4433

20.3

145

66.5

73

33.5

9th

Australia

197

3.5

3524

17.9

108

54.8

89

45.2

10th

New Zealand

164

3.0

3051

18.6

88

53.7

76

46.3

SCR standard competition ranking, TC total citations, C/A number of citations per article calculated by dividing the total number of citations retrieved for each country by the total number of publications for that country, h-index Hirsch index, SCP single country publication (intra-country collaboration), MCP multiple country publications (inter-country publications)

Most productive (active) institutions/organizations, authors, and journals

The most productive institution was the Technical University of Denmark (150; 2.7%) followed by the USDA ARS Russell Research Center RRC (USA) (2.5%) and Wageningen University and Research Centre (Netherlands) (2.0%). Three institutions in top ten productive institutions are located in the USA, two are in Netherlands, and two in the UK (Table 4). The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust is neither a university nor a research center yet ranked fourth with 108 publications. Analysis of these publications showed that 87 (80.5%) were collaborative articles between scientists in Belfast Health and Social Care Trust with researchers in universities and other research centers.
Table 4

Top ten productive (active) institutions/organizations in publishing articles on Campylobacter (2000–2015)

SCRa

Institution/organization

Frequency

% N = 5552

Country

1st

Danmarks Tekniske Universitet

150

2.7

Denmark

2nd

USDA ARS Russell Research Center RRC

138

2.5

USA

3rd

Wageningen University and Research Centre

110

2.0

Netherlands

4th

Belfast Health and Social Care Trust

108

1.9

UK

5th

Helsingin Yliopisto

98

1.8

Finland

6th

Utrecht University

93

1.7

Netherlands

7th

Iowa State University

91

1.6

USA

7th

Conseil national de recherches Canada

91

1.6

Canada

9th

Veterinary Laboratories Agency

90

1.6

UK

10th

USDA Agricultural Research Service, Washington DC

87

1.6

USA

Equal institutions were given the same ranking number and then a gap is left in the ranking numbers.

a SCR standard competition ranking

The top ten productive authors are shown in Table 5. Four authors in the top ten productive list are from the UK, three from the USA, one is affiliated with WHO center, one from Japan, and one from Finland. The top ten productive journals in publishing articles on Campylobacter is shown in Table 6. The most active journal was the Applied and Environmental Microbiology followed by the Journal of Food Protection with 246 (4.4%) articles for each (Table 6). All journals in the top ten list had an impact factor. The range of IF for journals in top active list was from 1.67 to 3.99. All journals in the top ten list, with the exception of Plos One, are in specific field of microbiology, infection, food, poultry, or immunology. Three journals (Plos One, Infection and Immunity, and Foodborne Pathogens and Disease) in the top ten list follow an open access policy.
Table 5

Top ten productive (active) authors in publishing articles on Campylobacter (2000–2015)

SCRa

Author

Frequency

% N = 5552

Country

1st

Moore, J.E.

111

2.0

UK

2nd

Hänninen, M.L.

80

1.4

Finland

3rd

Wagenaar, J.A.

76

1.4

WHO

4th

Matsuda, M.

73

1.3

Japan

5th

Zhang, Q.

63

1.1

USA

6th

Millar, B.C.

57

1.0

UK

6th

Guerry, P.

56

1.0

USA

8th

Newell, D.G.

56

1.0

UK

8th

Wren, B.W.

56

1.0

UK

10th

Berrang, M.E.

49

0.9

USA

a SCR Standard competition ranking. Equal authors were given the same ranking number, and then a gap is left in the ranking numbers

Table 6

Top ten productive (active) journals in publishing articles on Campylobacter (2000 – 2015)

SCR

Journal

Frequency

% N = 5552

IF

1st

Applied and Environmental Microbiology

246

4.4

3.668

1st

Journal of Food Protection

246

4.4

1.849

3rd

Journal of Clinical Microbiology

185

3.3

3.993

4th

International Journal of Food Microbiology

147

2.6

3.082

5th

Journal of Applied Microbiology

132

2.4

2.479

6th

Epidemiology and Infection

123

2.2

2.515

7th

Plos One

122

2.2

3.234

8th

Poultry Science

116

2.1

1.672

9th

Infection and Immunity

105

1.9

3.731

10th

Foodborne Pathogens and Disease

103

1.9

1.905

SCR standard competition ranking, IF impact factor

Top cited articles

The top cited articles on Campylobacter [5463] are shown in Table 7. The top cited articles were mostly in the field of molecular biology, pathophysiology, and public health. The highest number of citations attained was 1203 for an article on the molecular biology published in Nature. The top ten cited articles included seven research articles and three review articles.
Table 7

Top ten cited articles on Campylobacter (2000–2015)

Title

Year

Journal

Number of citations

Type of document

The genome sequence of the food-borne pathogen Campylobacter jejuni reveals hypervariable sequences [61]

2000

Nature

1223

Article

Increased rectal mucosal enteroendocrine cells, T lymphocytes, and increased gut permeability following acute Campylobacter enteritis and in post-dysenteric irritable bowel syndrome [62]

2000

Gut

776

Article

Campylobacter jejuni infections: update on emerging issues and trends [54]

2001

Clinical Infectious Diseases

597

Review

Bactericidal activities of plant essential oils and some of their isolated constituents against Campylobacter jejuni, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella enterica [59]

2002

Journal of Food Protection

567

Article

Multilocus sequence typing system for Campylobacter jejuni [55]

2001

Journal of Clinical Microbiology

472

Article

Quinolone and macrolide resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli: resistance mechanisms and trends in human isolates [56]

2001

Emerging Infectious Diseases

426

Review

N-linked glycosylation in Campylobacter jejuni and its functional transfer into E. coli [63]

2002

Science

416

Article

Campylobacters as zoonotic pathogens: a food production perspective [4]

2007

International Journal of Food Microbiology

341

Review

Major structural differences and novel potential virulence mechanisms from the genomes of multiple campylobacter species [57]

2005

PLoS Biology

319

Article

Risk factors for sporadic Campylobacter infection in the United States: a case-control study in FoodNet sites [58]

2004

Clinical Infectious Diseases

302

Article

Resistance profile

Analysis of retrieved documents for articles pertaining to Campylobacter drug resistance resulted in 728 articles, i.e., 13.16% of the total retrieved articles. The total number of citations received by articles on resistance was 14,191, a mean ± SD of 19.5 ± 30.2 citations per article and a median (IQR) of 10 (3–24). The h-index of retrieved articles on resistance was 53. Annual number of publications on drug-resistant Campylobacter showed a dramatic increase starting from year 2002 followed by a fluctuating plateau (Fig. 2). The dramatic increase in number of publications observed in 2002 was associated with 11 articles on the emergence of quinolone/fluoroquinolone resistance in Campylobacter. Top productive countries on Campylobacter drug resistance are shown in Table 8. Countries such as China (seventh) and Ireland (tenth) were among the top ten productive countries. The Iowa State University (38, 5.2%) was the most productive institution. The top ten cited articles [56, 6472] are shown in Table 9. Four articles discussed on resistance to flouroquinolones. The article that received the highest citations was a review article published in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases and titled Quinolone and macrolide resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli: Resistance mechanisms and trends in human isolates.
Fig. 2

Annual growth of publications on Campylobacter and campylobacter-related drug resistance (2000–2015)

Table 8

Top ten productive (active) countries in publishing articles on campylobacter-related drug resistance (2000–2015)

SCRa

Country

Frequency

% N = 5552

1st

USA

168

23.1

2nd

UK

59

8.1

3rd

Canada

54

7.4

4th

France

38

5.2

5th

Japan

35

4.8

6th

Finland

28

3.8

7th

China

27

3.7

8th

Thailand

25

3.4

9th

Denmark

24

3.3

9th

Ireland

24

3.3

9th

Poland

24

3.3

Equal countries were given the same ranking number, and then a gap is left in the ranking numbers.

a SCR standard competition ranking

Table 9

Top cited articles on campylobacter-related drug resistance (2000–2015)

Title

Year

Source title

Number of citations

Document type

Quinolone and macrolide resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli: resistance mechanisms and trends in human isolates [56]

2001

Emerging Infectious Diseases

426

Review

Antibiotic resistance in Campylobacter strains isolated from animals, foods, and humans in Spain in 1997–1998 [72]

2000

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

218

Article

Fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter species and the withdrawal of fluoroquinolones from use in poultry: a public health success story [71]

2007

Clinical Infectious Diseases

171

Review

Antimicrobial resistance among Campylobacter strains, United States, 1997–2001 [69]

2004

Emerging Infectious Diseases

166

Article

Enhanced in vivo fitness of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter jejuni in the absence of antibiotic selection pressure [70]

2005

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

162

Article

Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of thermophilic campylobacter in organic and conventional broiler flocks [65]

2001

Letters in Applied Microbiology

157

Article

Occurrence and resistance to antibiotics of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli in animals and meat in northeastern Italy [67]

2003

International Journal of Food Microbiology

145

Article

In vivo selection of Campylobacter isolates with high levels of fluoroquinolone resistance associated with gyrA mutations and the function of the CmeABC efflux pump [66]

2003

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

138

Article

Critical role of multidrug efflux pump CmeABC in bile resistance and in vivo colonization of Campylobacter jejuni [68]

2003

Infection and Immunity

132

Article

Antimicrobial susceptibilities of Campylobacter strains isolated from food animals in Belgium [64]

2001

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

132

Article

Discussion

In this study, a bibliometric overview of campylobacter-related publications was sought and presented. Our study showed a gradual and fluctuating increase in the number of publications with time. Most publications originated from developed countries. Campylobacter-related drug resistance publications also showed a noticeable increase in the past decade with quinolone and flouroquinolone resistance being most commonly emphasized. The result that the USA was the most productive was not surprising given that the USA ranked first in many other medical fields in quantity of publications [73, 74]. However, the USA ranked fourth in number of citations per article. One potential explanation for this discrepancy is the extent of international collaboration in publications from the USA compared to that of from the UK or the Netherlands. This study is the first bibliometric study on a zoonotic foodborne disease. No doubt that diarrhea associated with bacterial infections such as campylobacteriosis, particularly in developing regions, requires better monitoring and screening for types of bacteria involved and their susceptibility to traditional antibiotic therapy. More research efforts are required in this field.

The top ten cited articles on Campylobacter reveals that molecular biology and genomics of Campylobacter pathogen were the most important ones. Understanding the molecular biology and genomics will help understanding the pathogenesis of campylobacteriosis [7578]. One of the top cited articles was about search for new bactericidal agents from plant active oils [59]. Search for inexpensive, available, and efficacious therapeutic agents for gastroenteritis is common in developing world where traditional herbal medicine is popular [7981]. Other articles in the top ten list were on public health and the impact of campylobacteriosis on human health. Both food safety and antimicrobial resistance are core subjects of public health. Many reports have been published on foodborne infections and gastroenteritis in the form of outbreaks in Europe and many other countries. Similarly, combating antimicrobial resistance of campylobacter both at veterinary and human levels is a public health major concern [71, 8285].

There are several studies regarding research activity in the field of infectious diseases in general and those pertaining to campylobacteriosis in specific. A review article on control measures of campylobacter-contaminated poultry meat indicated that current intervention measures are ineffective and there is urgent need for more fundamental research on Campylobacter [86]. A commentary that appeared in Lancet indicated that research on neglected diseases such as diarrhea is needed and a faster action is required [87]. The slow and fluctuating increase in research activity on campylobacter could be attributed to lack of funding to such globally common bacterial diseases in favor of other diseases such as HIV, tuberculosis, lymphatic filariasis, schistosomiasis, salmonellosis, and malaria [88, 89]. A study showed that 37% of infectious diseases affecting livestock animals are bacterial diseases and this should encourage funding agencies to support research on bacterial infectious diseases of livestock that could affect humans such as campylobacteriosis [90]. Unfortunately, the escalating funding for infectious diseases such as HIV created a shortage of funding for other diseases of global burden such as campylobacteriosis [91]. A study that compared research output and citations among three infectious diseases indicated that funding has a positive influence on research output and citations for a particular disease [92]. It could be concluded that in the case presented in this study for campylobacter research output that funding is an important factor, funding needs to be consistent and well planned based on global need, and collaboration in such funding is of extreme importance to help eradicate some of the neglected diseases of poverty such as diarrhea.

Our study showed that campylobacter-related drug resistance publications were reported from different parts of the world suggesting that such a problem is a global problem [9398]. Antimicrobial resistance among Campylobacter has developed mainly as a result of irrational use of antimicrobial agents in veterinary practices and food industry [99, 100]. Resistance to macrolides, flouroquinolones, and beta-lactams has been reported [56, 101104]. The mechanisms involved in resistance to flouroquinolone include mutations in the target enzyme called gyrase which is involved in bacterial DNA replication and repair [66, 103, 105]. Another important mechanism of resistance to quinolones includes efflux mechanism [68].

Our study has few limitations that need to be considered when interpreting the results. Like all bibliometric studies [38, 39, 42, 106109], false positive and false negative results are unavoidable because there is no perfect and comprehensive research query. Therefore, we might have missed some articles either due to search query or to the use of title search rather than title/abstract search. Despite the fact that Scopus is one of the largest databases, there are some journals that are not indexed in Scopus, and therefore, articles on Campylobacter published in these unindexed journals were definitely missed. Furthermore, the citation analysis did not exclude self-citation, and therefore, ranking based on citations or citation per article might be misleading in certain cases.

Conclusions

The number of publications on Campylobacter and on campylobacter-related drug resistance showed a clear rise in the past decade. Northern America and European countries are leading research on Campylobacter. Publications focused mainly on molecular biology/genetics and public health burden of campylobacteriosis. Research on rational drug use of antimicrobials in human, poultry, and animals is highly recommended to limit the emergence of antimicrobial resistance in Campylobacter. Furthermore, international collaboration is highly required particularly in implementing new diagnostic screening technologies for Campylobacter detection to ensure food safety.

Abbreviations

CDC: 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

IF: 

Impact factor

SCP: 

Single country publications

SCR: 

Standard competition ranking

WHO: 

World Health Organization

Declarations

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

None.

Availability of data and materials

All data present in this article can be retrieved from Scopus using keywords listed in the methodology.

Authors’ contributions

WS and SZ carried out the idea, concept, and manuscript preparation. SJ, AA, and AS participated in the data extraction, analysis, and presentation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Physiology, Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University
(2)
Department of Clinical and Community Pharmacy, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University

References

  1. Man SM. The clinical importance of emerging Campylobacter species. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;8(12):669–85.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Lee S, Lee J, Ha J, Choi Y, Kim S, Lee H, et al. Clinical relevance of infections with zoonotic and human oral species of Campylobacter. J Microbiol. 2016;54(7):459–67.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Wilson DJ, Gabriel E, Leatherbarrow AJ, Cheesbrough J, Gee S, Bolton E, et al. Tracing the source of campylobacteriosis. PLoS Genet. 2008;4(9):e1000203.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Silva J, Leite D, Fernandes M, Mena C, Gibbs PA, Teixeira P. Campylobacter spp. as a Foodborne Pathogen: A Review. Front Microbiol. 2011;2:200.
  5. Sarkar SR, Hossain MA, Paul SK, Ray NC, Sultana S, Rahman MM, et al. Campylobacteriosis—an overview. Mymensingh Med J. 2014;23(1):173–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Golz G, Rosner B, Hofreuter D, Josenhans C, Kreienbrock L, Lowenstein A, et al. Relevance of Campylobacter to public health—the need for a One Health approach. Int J Med Microbiol. 2014;304(7):817–23.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Kaakoush NO, Castano-Rodriguez N, Mitchell HM, Man SM. Global epidemiology of Campylobacter infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015;28(3):687–720.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Taniuchi M, Sobuz SU, Begum S, Platts-Mills JA, Liu J, Yang Z, et al. Etiology of diarrhea in Bangladeshi infants in the first year of life analyzed using molecular methods. J Infect Dis. 2013;208(11):1794–802.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Rao MR, Naficy AB, Savarino SJ, Abu-Elyazeed R, Wierzba TF, Peruski LF, et al. Pathogenicity and convalescent excretion of Campylobacter in rural Egyptian children. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154(2):166–73.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Pazzaglia G, Bourgeois AL, el Diwany K, Nour N, Badran N, Hablas R. Campylobacter diarrhoea and an association of recent disease with asymptomatic shedding in Egyptian children. Epidemiol Infect. 1991;106(1):77–82.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Nichols GL, Richardson JF, Sheppard SK, Lane C, Sarran C. Campylobacter epidemiology: a descriptive study reviewing 1 million cases in England and Wales between 1989 and 2011. BMJ Open. 2012;2(4):e001179.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Kubota K, Kasuga F, Iwasaki E, Inagaki S, Sakurai Y, Komatsu M, et al. Estimating the burden of acute gastroenteritis and foodborne illness caused by Campylobacter, Salmonella, and Vibrio parahaemolyticus by using population-based telephone survey data, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan, 2005 to 2006. J Food Prot. 2011;74(10):1592–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Scallan E, Hoekstra RM, Angulo FJ, Tauxe RV, Widdowson MA, Roy SL, et al. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—major pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011;17(1):7–15.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitzgerald C. Campylobacter. Clin Lab Med. 2015;35(2):289–98.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Centers for Diseases Prevention and Control. Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet). 2014. https://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/reports/annual-reports-2014.html. Accessed October 30 2016.
  16. Food Standard Agency. FSA warns that chicken bacteria could be next meat scandal. In: The Telegraph. 2013. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/9820838/FSA-warns-that-chicken-bacteria-could-be-next-meat-scandal.html. Accessed November 2 2016.
  17. de Wit MA, Koopmans MP, Kortbeek LM, Wannet WJ, Vinje J, van Leusden F, et al. Sensor, a population-based cohort study on gastroenteritis in the Netherlands: incidence and etiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154(7):666–74.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Havelaar AH, Haagsma JA, Mangen MJ, Kemmeren JM, Verhoef LP, Vijgen SM, et al. Disease burden of foodborne pathogens in the Netherlands, 2009. Int J Food Microbiol. 2012;156(3):231–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Tam CC, Rodrigues LC, Viviani L, Dodds JP, Evans MR, Hunter PR, et al. Longitudinal study of infectious intestinal disease in the UK (IID2 study): incidence in the community and presenting to general practice. Gut. 2012;61(1):69–77.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. World Health Organization. Campylobacter. 2011. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs255/en/. Accessed June 16 2016.
  21. McCrackin MA, Helke KL, Galloway AM, Poole AZ, Salgado CD, Marriott BP. Effect of antimicrobial use in agricultural animals on drug-resistant foodborne campylobacteriosis in humans: a systematic literature review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2016;56(13):2115–32.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Shin E, Hong H, Oh Y, Lee Y. First report and molecular characterization of a campylobacter jejuni isolate with extensive drug resistance from a travel-associated human case. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(10):6670–2.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Kashoma IP, Kassem II, John J, Kessy BM, Gebreyes W, Kazwala RR, et al. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of campylobacter isolated from dressed beef carcasses and Raw milk in Tanzania. Microb Drug Resist. 2016;22(1):40–52.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Chen J, Yu Y, Wang J, Gu Y, Sun X, Xu J, et al. Three cases of acute gastroenteritis caused by high-level macrolideresistant Campylobacter: drug resistance mechanisms and clinical characteristics. Scand J Infect Dis. 2012;44(7):541–3.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Agunos A, Leger D, Avery BP, Parmley EJ, Deckert A, Carson CA, et al. Ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter spp. in retail chicken, western Canada. Emerg Infect Dis. 2013;19(7):1121–4.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Mukherjee P, Ramamurthy T, Mitra U, Mukhopadhyay AK. Emergence of high-level azithromycin resistance in Campylobacter jejuni isolates from pediatric diarrhea patients in Kolkata. India Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(7):4248.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic? Antimicrobial resistance. 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/. Accessed November 1 2016.
  28. Trapero-Marugán M, Gisbert JP, Pajares JM. Spanish scientific output on Helicobacter pylori. A study through Medline. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2006;98(4):255–64.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Suk FM, Lien GS, Yu TC, Ho YS. Global trends in Helicobacter pylori research from 1991 to 2008 analyzed with the Science Citation Index Expanded. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;23(4):295–301.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Chou L-F. Medline-based bibliometric analysis of gastroenterology journals between 2001 and 2007. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15(23):2933–9.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Khatun A, Ahmed S. A bibliometric analysis of diarrhoeal disease research in Bangladesh. ALIS. 2011;58(2):109–17.Google Scholar
  32. Loomes DE, van Zanten SV. Bibliometrics of the top 100 clinical articles in digestive disease. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(4):673–6. e5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Chen T-J, Chen Y-C, Hwang S-J, Chou L-F. The rise of China in gastroenterology? A bibliometric analysis of ISI and Medline databases. Scientometrics. 2006;69(3):539–49.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. World Health Organization. The global view of campylobacteriosis: report of an expert consultation. 2013. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/80751/1/9789241564601_eng.pdf. Accessed November 2 2016.
  35. Fenwick A. The global burden of neglected tropical diseases. Public Health. 2012;126(3):233–6.
  36. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. Faseb j. 2008;22(2):338–42.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Sweileh WM. Bibliometric analysis of literature on female genital mutilation: (1930 - 2015). Reprod Health. 2016;13(1):130.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Sweileh WM, Al-Jabi SW, Sawalha AF, Zyoud SH. Bibliometric profile of the global scientific research on autism spectrum disorders. Springerplus. 2016;5(1):1480.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Sweileh WM, Shraim NY, Al-Jabi SW, Sawalha AF, AbuTaha AS, Zyoud SH. Bibliometric analysis of global scientific research on carbapenem resistance (1986–2015). Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2016;15(1):56.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Sweileh WM, Shraim NY, Al-Jabi SW, Sawalha AF, Rahhal B, Khayyat RA, et al. Assessing worldwide research activity on probiotics in pediatrics using Scopus database: 1994-2014. World Allergy Organ J. 2016;9:25.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Sweileh WM, Shraim NY, Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW. Worldwide research productivity on tramadol: a bibliometric analysis. Springerplus. 2016;5(1):1108.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Sweileh WM, Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sawalha AF, Shraim NY. Drinking and recreational water-related diseases: a bibliometric analysis (1980-2015). Ann Occup Environ Med. 2016;28(1):40.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Andersen-Nissen E, Smith KD, Strobe KL, Barrett SL, Cookson BT, Logan SM, et al. Evasion of Toll-like receptor 5 by flagellated bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(26):9247–52.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Brouqui P, Raoult D. Endocarditis due to rare and fastidious bacteria. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2001;14(1):177–207.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Butler J, MacCallum I, Kleber M, Shlyakhter IA, Belmonte MK, Lander ES, et al. ALLPATHS: de novo assembly of whole-genome shotgun microreads. Genome Res. 2008;18(5):810–20.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Dowd SE, Callaway TR, Wolcott RD, Sun Y, McKeehan T, Hagevoort RG, et al. Evaluation of the bacterial diversity in the feces of cattle using 16S rDNA bacterial tag-encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing (bTEFAP). BMC Microbiol. 2008;8:125.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Dunlop SP, Jenkins D, Neal KR, Spiller RC. Relative importance of enterochromaffin cell hyperplasia, anxiety, and depression in postinfectious IBS. Gastroenterology. 2003;125(6):1651–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Feil EJ, Li BC, Aanensen DM, Hanage WP, Spratt BG. eBURST: inferring patterns of evolutionary descent among clusters of related bacterial genotypes from multilocus sequence typing data. J Bacteriol. 2004;186(5):1518–30.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. McEwen SA, Fedorka-Cray PJ. Antimicrobial use and resistance in animals. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34 Suppl 3:S93–S106.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. van Doorn PA, Ruts L, Jacobs BC. Clinical features, pathogenesis, and treatment of Guillain-Barre syndrome. Lancet Neurol. 2008;7(10):939–50.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Willison HJ, Yuki N. Peripheral neuropathies and anti-glycolipid antibodies. Brain. 2002;125(Pt 12):2591–625.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(46):16569–72.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Thomson Reuters. Journal Citation Reports. 2015. https://jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com/. Accessed August 7 2016.
  54. Allos BM. Campylobacter jejuni infections: update on emerging issues and trends. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;32(8):1201–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Dingle KE, Colles FM, Wareing DR, Ure R, Fox AJ, Bolton FE, et al. Multilocus sequence typing system for Campylobacter jejuni. J Clin Microbiol. 2001;39(1):14–23.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Engberg J, Aarestrup FM, Taylor DE, Gerner-Smidt P, Nachamkin I. Quinolone and macrolide resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli: resistance mechanisms and trends in human isolates. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(1):24–34.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Fouts DE, Mongodin EF, Mandrell RE, Miller WG, Rasko DA, Ravel J, et al. Major structural differences and novel potential virulence mechanisms from the genomes of multiple campylobacter species. PLoS Biol. 2005;3(1):e15.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Friedman CR, Hoekstra RM, Samuel M, Marcus R, Bender J, Shiferaw B, et al. Risk factors for sporadic Campylobacter infection in the United States: a case-control study in FoodNet sites. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38 Suppl 3:S285–96.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Friedman M, Henika PR, Mandrell RE. Bactericidal activities of plant essential oils and some of their isolated constituents against Campylobacter jejuni, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella enterica. J Food Prot. 2002;65(10):1545–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Humphrey T, O'Brien S, Madsen M. Campylobacters as zoonotic pathogens: a food production perspective. Int J Food Microbiol. 2007;117(3):237–57.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Parkhill J, Wren BW, Mungall K, Ketley JM, Churcher C, Basham D, et al. The genome sequence of the food-borne pathogen Campylobacter jejuni reveals hypervariable sequences. Nature. 2000;403(6770):665–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Spiller RC, Jenkins D, Thornley JP, Hebden JM, Wright T, Skinner M, et al. Increased rectal mucosal enteroendocrine cells, T lymphocytes, and increased gut permeability following acute Campylobacter enteritis and in post-dysenteric irritable bowel syndrome. Gut. 2000;47(6):804–11.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Wacker M, Linton D, Hitchen PG, Nita-Lazar M, Haslam SM, North SJ, et al. N-linked glycosylation in Campylobacter jejuni and its functional transfer into E. coli. Science. 2002;298(5599):1790–3.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Looveren M, Daube G, De Zutter L, Dumont JM, Lammens C, Wijdooghe M, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibilities of Campylobacter strains isolated from food animals in Belgium. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001;48(2):235–40.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Heuer OE, Pedersen K, Andersen JS, Madsen M. Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of thermophilic Campylobacter in organic and conventional broiler flocks. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2001;33(4):269–74.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Luo N, Sahin O, Lin J, Michel LO, Zhang Q. In vivo selection of Campylobacter isolates with high levels of fluoroquinolone resistance associated with gyrA mutations and the function of the CmeABC efflux pump. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003;47(1):390–4.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Pezzotti G, Serafin A, Luzzi I, Mioni R, Milan M, Perin R. Occurrence and resistance to antibiotics of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli in animals and meat in northeastern Italy. Int J Food Microbiol. 2003;82(3):281–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Lin J, Sahin O, Michel LO, Zhang Q. Critical role of multidrug efflux pump CmeABC in bile resistance and in vivo colonization of Campylobacter jejuni. Infect Immun. 2003;71(8):4250–9.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Gupta A, Nelson JM, Barrett TJ, Tauxe RV, Rossiter SP, Friedman CR, et al. Antimicrobial resistance among Campylobacter strains, United States, 1997–2001. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10(6):1102–9.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Luo N, Pereira S, Sahin O, Lin J, Huang S, Michel L, et al. Enhanced in vivo fitness of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter jejuni in the absence of antibiotic selection pressure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(3):541–6.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Nelson JM, Chiller TM, Powers JH, Angulo FJ. Fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter species and the withdrawal of fluoroquinolones from use in poultry: a public health success story. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44(7):977–80.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Sáenz Y, Zarazaga M, Lantero M, Gastañares MJ, Baquero F, Torres C. Antibiotic resistance in Campylobacter strains isolated from animals, foods, and humans in Spain in 1997–1998. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000;44(2):267–71.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Cruz-Calderon S, Nasner-Posso KM, Alfaro-Toloza P, Paniz-Mondolfi AE, Rodriguez-Morales AJ. A bibliometric analysis of global Ebola research. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2015;13(2):202–4.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Fricke R, Uibel S, Klingelhoefer D, Groneberg DA. Influenza: a scientometric and density-equalizing analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13(1):454.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Young KT, Davis LM, Dirita VJ. Campylobacter jejuni: molecular biology and pathogenesis. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2007;5(9):665–79.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  76. Hendrixson DR, DiRita VJ. Identification of Campylobacter jejuni genes involved in commensal colonization of the chick gastrointestinal tract. Mol Microbiol. 2004;52(2):471–84.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  77. Konkel ME, Kim BJ, Rivera-Amill V, Garvis SG. Bacterial secreted proteins are required for the internalization of Campylobacter jejuni into cultured mammalian cells. Mol Microbiol. 1999;32(4):691–701.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  78. Novik V, Hofreuter D, Galan JE. Identification of Campylobacter jejuni genes involved in its interaction with epithelial cells. Infect Immun. 2010;78(8):3540–53.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Ravishankar S, Zhu L, Law B, Joens L, Friedman M. Plant-derived compounds inactivate antibiotic-resistant Campylobacter jejuni strains. J Food Prot. 2008;71(6):1145–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Gutiérrez SP, Sánchez MAZ, González CP, García LA. Antidiarrhoeal activity of different plants used in traditional medicine. Afr J Biotechnol. 2007;6(25):2988–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  81. Samie A, Obi CL, Lall N, Meyer JJ. In-vitro cytotoxicity and antimicrobial activities, against clinical isolates of Campylobacter species and Entamoeba histolytica, of local medicinal plants from the Venda region, in South Africa. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2009;103(2):159–70.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  82. Frost JA, Gillespie IA, O'Brien SJ. Public health implications of campylobacter outbreaks in England and Wales, 1995–9: epidemiological and microbiological investigations. Epidemiol Infect. 2002;128(2):111–8.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  83. Tauxe RV. Emerging foodborne diseases: an evolving public health challenge. Emerg Infect Dis. 1997;3(4):425–34.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  84. Harris NV, Weiss NS, Nolan CM. The role of poultry and meats in the etiology of Campylobacter jejuni/coli enteritis. Am J Public Health. 1986;76(4):407–11.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  85. Altekruse SF, Stern NJ, Fields PI, Swerdlow DL. Campylobacter jejuni—an emerging foodborne pathogen. Emerg Infect Dis. 1999;5(1):28–35.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  86. Hermans D, Van Deun K, Messens W, Martel A, Van Immerseel F, Haesebrouck F, et al. Campylobacter control in poultry by current intervention measures ineffective: urgent need for intensified fundamental research. Vet Microbiol. 2011;152(3-4):219–28.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  87. Utzinger J, Keiser J. Research and development for neglected diseases: more is still needed, and faster. Lancet Glob Health. 2013;1(6):e317–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  88. Allen T, Parker M. Will increased funding for neglected tropical diseases really make poverty history? Lancet. 2012;379(9821):1097–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  89. Eurosurveillance editorial team. The European Union provides funding to strengthen the protection against zoonoses and animal diseases. Euro Surveill. 2011;16(46).
  90. Ducrot C, Gautret M, Pineau T, Jestin A. Scientific literature on infectious diseases affecting livestock animals, longitudinal worldwide bibliometric analysis. Vet Res. 2016;47(1):42.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  91. Fleischer T, Kevany S, Benatar SR. Will escalating spending on HIV treatment displace funding for treatment of other diseases? S Afr Med J. 2010;100(1):32–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Head MG, Fitchett JR, Derrick G, Wurie FB, Meldrum J, Kumari N, et al. Comparing research investment to United Kingdom institutions and published outputs for tuberculosis, HIV and malaria: a systematic analysis across 1997–2013. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13(1):63.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  93. Chen X, Naren GW, Wu CM, Wang Y, Dai L, Xia LN, et al. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter isolates in broilers from China. Vet Microbiol. 2010;144(1-2):133–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  94. Dallal MMS, Doyle MP, Rezadehbashi M, Dabiri H, Sanaei M, Modarresi S, et al. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance profiles of Salmonella serotypes, Campylobacter and Yersinia spp. isolated from retail chicken and beef, Tehran, Iran. Food Control. 2010;21(4):388–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  95. Ghosh R, Uppal B, Aggarwal P, Chakravarti A, Jha AK. Increasing antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter jejuni isolated from paediatric diarrhea cases in a tertiary care hospital of New Delhi, India. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7(2):247–9.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  96. Gallay A, Prouzet-Mauleon V, Kempf I, Lehours P, Labadi L, Camou C, et al. Campylobacter antimicrobial drug resistance among humans, broiler chickens, and pigs. France Emerg Infect Dis. 2007;13(2):259–66.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  97. Miflin JK, Templeton JM, Blackall PJ. Antibiotic resistance in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolated from poultry in the South-East Queensland region. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;59(4):775–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  98. Gaudreau C, Boucher F, Gilbert H, Bekal S. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli isolates obtained in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, from 2002 to 2013. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52(7):2644–6.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  99. Aarestrup FM, Wegener HC. The effects of antibiotic usage in food animals on the development of antimicrobial resistance of importance for humans in Campylobacter and Escherichia coli. Microbes Infect. 1999;1(8):639–44.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  100. Hidano A, Yamamoto T, Hayama Y, Muroga N, Kobayashi S, Nishida T, et al. Antimicrobial resistance among Campylobacter isolates obtained from retail chicken meat and offal products in Japan. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2014;67(4):315–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  101. Fliegelman RM, Petrak RM, Goodman LJ, Segreti J, Trenholme GM, Kaplan RL. Comparative in vitro activities of twelve antimicrobial agents against Campylobacter species. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985;27(3):429–30.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  102. Hardy DJ, Hanson CW, Hensey DM, Beyer JM, Fernandes PB. Susceptibility of Campylobacter pylori to macrolides and fluoroquinolones. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1988;22(5):631–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  103. Payot S, Bolla JM, Corcoran D, Fanning S, Megraud F, Zhang Q. Mechanisms of fluoroquinolone and macrolide resistance in Campylobacter spp. Microbes Infect. 2006;8(7):1967–71.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  104. Alfredson DA, Korolik V. Antibiotic resistance and resistance mechanisms in Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2007;277(2):123–32.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  105. Ruiz J. Mechanisms of resistance to quinolones: target alterations, decreased accumulation and DNA gyrase protection. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;51(5):1109–17.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  106. Zyoud SH. Dengue research: a bibliometric analysis of worldwide and Arab publications during 1872–2015. Virol J. 2016;13:78.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  107. Zyoud SH. Global research trends of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus: a bibliometric analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:255.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  108. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Awang R. Contribution of Arab countries to pharmaceutical wastewater literature: a bibliometric and comparative analysis of research output. Ann Occup Environ Med. 2016;28:28.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  109. Zyoud SH, Waring WS, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Rahhal B, Awang R. Intravenous lipid emulsion as an antidote for the treatment of acute poisoning: a bibliometric analysis of human and animal studies. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2016;119(5):512–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement