Methodological approaches and reporting guidance for bibliometric analyses in the health sciences: an umbrella review protocol

BACKGROUND: Bibliometric analyses are increasingly used in the health sciences to describe research landscapes, map scientific structures, and support evaluative claims. However, results are sensitive to methodological choices (e.g., database coverage, inclusion criteria, preprocessing, and analytic parameters), and reporting is often incomplete, limiting transparency, reproducibility, and responsible interpretation of indicators. OBJECTIVE: This umbrella review will synthesize evidence syntheses on bibliometric methodology in the health sciences to (i) map recommended methods, tools, workflows, and reporting guidance, and (ii) summarize how syntheses explicitly frame the interpretation of bibliometric indicators, including limitations and recommended safeguards. METHODS: Following Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for umbrella reviews, we will include evidence syntheses (systematic reviews, scoping reviews with systematic methods, umbrella reviews, and mapping reviews) that address bibliometric methods and/or reporting recommendations relevant to the health sciences. Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus, supplemented by targeted grey literature searching and screening of reference lists and forward citations. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data using a piloted form, and critically appraise methodological quality using the JBI checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses. Findings will be presented as (1) a descriptive methodological map (methods, data sources, preprocessing, tools, parameters, reporting items) and (2) a framework-based thematic synthesis of explicitly reported interpretive framing, limitations, potential biases, and safeguards for responsible use of indicators. EXPECTED OUTCOMES: The review will provide consolidated, actionable guidance to improve reporting completeness, reproducibility, and responsible interpretation of bibliometric evidence in the health sciences.