Discussion

This study provides the first comparative bibliometric evaluation of disaster medicine and medical rescue, analyzing 727 publications produced between 1992 and 2024. By systematically mapping publication trends, influential authors, journals, institutions, and thematic shifts, the study contributes to understanding how these 2 closely related yet distinct fields have evolved.

Although disaster medicine is a relatively new discipline, its expansion has been rapid, driven largely by major global disasters and public health crises. Events such as the 1999 Marmara Earthquake, the 2011 Tokyo Earthquake, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake acted as catalysts for scientific inquiry, generating a noticeable rise in research activity.Reference Hamilton, Södergård and Liverani ³ The importance of disaster medicine has also been reinforced at the policy level, particularly through the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015), ⁷ which emphasized preparedness, resilience, and health system strengthening. As a result, disaster medicine has gained visibility within the academic community and increasing recognition by health authorities.Reference Biçakçi and Biçakçi ⁵

The Bradford’s Law analysis highlights the structural concentration of disaster medicine research. While publications appeared in 240 journals, only 2 journals formed the core: DMPHP (most prolific and highest h-index) and PDM (most cited). In medical rescue, PDM dominated across productivity, citation, and h-index metrics. These findings underscore the central role of WADEM-affiliated journals in disseminating knowledge and shaping discourse. In addition, similar results have been reached in previous studies on disaster medicine. ^{Reference Sweileh4,Reference Biçakçi and Biçakçi5}

Thematic analysis further illustrates the distinct trajectories of the 2 fields. Disaster medicine increasingly addresses system-level issues such as preparedness, resilience, and public health, reflecting its multidisciplinary nature. Conversely, medical rescue has evolved toward operational and practice-oriented themes, including management, simulation, and triage. The emphasis on triage processes, disaster planning, and health care worker well-being in disaster medicine highlights the discipline’s broader orientation toward system resilience.Reference Aydoğdu Umaç and Yılmaz ⁸ In contrast, the operational focus of medical rescue literature reflects its direct engagement with time-critical, field-based interventions.

Although the mean number of co-authors was similar in both fields, international collaboration was more frequent in medical rescue (30.1%) than in disaster medicine (25.1%). This finding reflects the inherently multinational and interdisciplinary nature of emergency response operations. Furthermore, the higher citation rate observed in disaster medicine articles (12.9 vs. 11.6 per paper) suggests broader scholarly resonance, likely due to its multidisciplinary overlap with public health and policy domains.

Authorship analysis identified Ragazzoni Luca and Cone David C. as the most influential scholars in disaster medicine and medical rescue, respectively. However, Lotka’s Law revealed that over 93% of disaster medicine authors and 96% of medical rescue authors contributed to only one publication. This concentration of output among a small number of highly productive authors highlights the fragility of research networks and underscores the need for sustainable collaborative structures. Establishing stronger academic partnerships would facilitate continuity, promote knowledge transfer, and encourage capacity-building in under-researched areas.Reference Kyvik and Reymert ⁹

Johns Hopkins University was the most prolific in disaster medicine, reflecting outputs from specialized programs such as the Johns Hopkins Disaster Fellowship. In medical rescue, Region Education and Research Hospital, Yale University, and Hacettepe University were leading contributors, indicating that both established research centers and institutions in disaster-prone regions play pivotal roles. At the country level, the United States dominated in both fields, while Japan, China, Italy, and Australia emerged as leading contributors in disaster medicine, and China, Sweden, Turkey, and Japan in medical rescue. These patterns illustrate the interplay between research capacity and disaster exposure in shaping publication outputs. ¹⁰

Taken together, these findings suggest that disaster medicine and medical rescue are expanding but divergent domains of inquiry. Disaster medicine continues to prioritize preparedness and system resilience, while medical rescue emphasizes operational efficiency and immediate response. Both fields remain characterized by fragmented authorship and a reliance on a small number of journals and institutions. Moving forward, strengthening multinational collaborations, broadening the scope of participating journals, and applying advanced bibliometric techniques such as citation network and co-occurrence analyses will be essential to deepen understanding of the intellectual structure of the field. Integrating insights from both domains may ultimately enhance the translation of academic knowledge into more effective disaster response strategies. The higher collaboration in medical rescue despite lower output may stem from its inherently operational nature, requiring joint field exercises and cross-border coordination. Conversely, disaster medicine research—often conducted in academic or policy settings—shows sustained productivity but limited field-based integration. Translating these findings into capacity-building frameworks may strengthen the interface between academic preparedness and practical rescue response.