Global Trends, Collaboration Patterns, and Thematic Evolution of Telemedicine Research: A Bibliometric Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58600/eurjther3181Keywords:
bibliometric analysis, science mapping, telemedicine, telehealth, vosviewerAbstract
Objective: This study aimed to systematically examine the global scientific landscape of telemedicine research by evaluating publication trends, influential journals and authors, international collaboration networks, and thematic developments over time.
Methods: In this bibliometric study, 14,590 peer-reviewed articles indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection between 2015 and 2025 were analyzed. Data processing and quantitative analyses were performed using the bibliometrix R package, while network visualizations were generated using VOSviewer. Annual scientific output and core journals were identified using Bradford’s Law. Author productivity and citation impact, country-level collaboration networks, keyword co-occurrence patterns, thematic mapping, and sensitivity analyses comparing the pre-pandemic and post-pandemic periods were also evaluated.
Results: Scientific production in the field of telemedicine increased markedly after 2020 and remained at a high level through 2025. Approximately one-third of all publications were concentrated in eight core journals, led by Telemedicine and e-Health and Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. The United States was the leading contributor in terms of both research productivity and international collaboration, followed by Australia, England, Canada, and China. Keyword co-occurrence analysis identified major thematic clusters related to mental health, primary healthcare, chronic disease management, public health equity, and artificial intelligence. Thematic mapping positioned mobile health (m-health) as a motor theme, whereas COVID-19-related research was identified as a basic theme. Mental health occupied an intermediate position between motor and basic themes, while artificial intelligence and e-health were located within emerging or evolving thematic domains.
Conclusion: Telemedicine research has evolved rapidly toward patient-centered and technologically enhanced healthcare models. These findings provide a comprehensive overview of the intellectual structure of the field and identify emerging priorities for future telemedicine research.
References
[1] WHO Global Observatory for eHealth (2010). Telemedicine: opportunities and developments in Member States: report on the second global survey on eHealth. World Health Organization. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/44497
[2] Bashshur RL, Shannon GW, Krupinski EA, Grigsby J (2011) The taxonomy of telemedicine. Telemed J E Health. 17(6):484–494. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2011.0103
[3] Mehrotra A, Ray K, Brockmeyer DM, Barnett ML, Bender JA (2020) Rapidly converting to “virtual practices”: outpatient care in the era of COVID-19. NEJM Catal Innov Care Deliv. 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1056/CAT.20.0091
[4] Smith AC, Thomas E, Snoswell CL, Haydon H, Mehrotra A, Clemensen J, Caffery LJ (2020) Telehealth for global emergencies: implications for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). J Telemed Telecare. 26(5):309–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X20916567
[5] Snoswell CL, Taylor ML, Comans TA, Smith AC, Gray LC, Caffery LJ (2020) Determining if telehealth can reduce health system costs: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 22(10):e17298. https://doi.org/10.2196/17298
[6] Caffery LJ, Taylor M, Gole G, Smith AC (2016) Models of care in tele-ophthalmology: a scoping review. J Telemed Telecare. 22(7):451–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X16655887
[7] Chen J, Amaize A, Barath D (2021) Evaluating telehealth adoption and related barriers among hospitals located in rural and urban areas. J Rural Health. 37(4):801–811. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12534
[8] Clarivate (2023) Web of Science Core Collection: Content Coverage Guide. Available from http://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-referencing/web-of-science/web-of-science-core-collection/ Accessed February 13, 2026
[9] Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
[10] 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.2017.08.007
[11] Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 84(2):523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
[12] Callon M, Courtial JP, Laville F (1991) Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: the case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics. 22(1):155–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Tanyeli Güneyligil Kazaz, İlkay Doğan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The content of this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
