ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2011
Development of biomedical publications on ametropia research in PubMed from 1845 to 2010: a bibliometric analysis.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Trends in impact factors of ophthalmology journals.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2016Article
- A Head-Mounted Spectacle Frame for the Study of Mouse Lens-Induced Myopia.Journal of ophthalmology · 2016Article
- Contribution of Arab researchers to ophthalmology: a bibliometric and comparative analysis.SpringerPlus · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimWe have carried out a bibliometric analysis on the development of ametropia literature to determine its growth rule and tendency, and to provide the basis for the problems related to ametropia research.
methodsLiteratures that contained the descriptors of ametropia in title or paper published before Nov. 10, 2010 in PubMed databases (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Pubmed) were selected. As bibliometric indicators of ametropia, biomedical journals referring to ophthalmology by ISSN were calculated. The principal bibliometric indicators: Price's and Bradford's laws were applied on the increase or dispersion of scientific literature, the participation index of languages and the journals. By means of manual coding, literatures were classified according to documents study and statistical analysis.
resultsThe literatures cited in ametropia, astigmatism, myopia and hypermetropia had accumulated to 26475, which consists of Review (n=1560), Randomized Controlled Trial (n=776), Practice Guideline (n=10), Meta-Analysis (n=23), Letter (n=1222), Editorial (n=328), Clinical Trial (n=1726) and Others (n=20830), and Humans (n=23073), Animals(n=1434) and others (n=1968). 1136 literatures were included in PubMed Central, 22384 in MEDLINE and 2955 in others. The ametropia literatures rose every 5 years which of the ametropia-year cumulated amount of the literatures had three periods: before 1900, slowly increasing from 1901 to 1950, rapidly rising from 1951 to 2010 (increased approximate exponentiation exponent). Sixty kinds of languages listed in PubMed databases, of which English is dominant for aborting to ametropia research documents before 2010 (77.32%, 20471/26475). The document languages of top eight account for 95.58% (English, German, French, Japanese, Russian, Italian, Spanish, Chinese), and others for 4.42% (1171/26475). The SCI database includes 48 ophthalmologic journals and the impact factor of 39 journals is ≥1 on Thomson-Reuters in 2010. Of 48 ophthalmologic journals, there were 14785 documents (55.85%) of ametropia, astigmatism, myopia, and hypermetropia. Others were without exception.
conclusionThe bibliometric analysis results show that ametropia literature are increased progressively, approximate exponentiation exponent during 1951-2010. In addition, ametropia research has become more popular since nearly half century.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.