ArticlePloS one2014
International scientific collaboration in HIV and HPV: a network analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategic Analysis of Collaborative Networks in Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Research for Improved Pest Management Strategies.Neotropical entomology · 2024Review
- Global Imbalances in Funding Sources for HIV Randomized Control Trials.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2023Article
- North-south scientific collaborations on research datasets: a longitudinal analysis of the division of labor on genomic datasets (1992-2021).Frontiers in big data · 2023Article
- Exploring high scientific productivity in international co-authorship of a small developing country based on collaboration patterns.Journal of big data · 2023Article
- Review
- Low-carbon alcohol fuels for decarbonizing the road transportation industry: a bibliometric analysis 2000-2021.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022Article
- Global Research on Hereditary Hearing Impairment Over the Last 40 Years: A Bibliometric Study.The journal of international advanced otology · 2021Review
- Trends in hepatitis A research indexed in the Web of Science: a bibliometric analysis over the period from 1985 to 2019.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2021Article
- A Systematic Analysis of Research onFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Research productivity and collaboration of the NIH-funded HIV vaccine trials network: A bibliometric analysis.Heliyon · 2021Article
- From cut-points to key players in co-authorship networks: a case study in ventilator-associated pneumonia research.Scientometrics · 2020Article
- Analysis of Scientific Collaboration Networks among Authors, Institutions, and Countries Studying Adolescent Myopia Prevention and Control: A Review Article.Iranian journal of public health · 2019Review
- Article
- Mapping the Growing Discipline of Dissemination and Implementation Science in Health.Scientometrics · 2017Article
- Examining word association networks: A cross-country comparison of women's perceptions of HPV testing and vaccination.PloS one · 2017Article
- An Examination of Not-For-Profit Stakeholder Networks for Relationship Management: A Small-Scale Analysis on Social Media.PloS one · 2016Article
- A cross-sectional study of high-risk human papillomavirus clustering and cervical outcomes in HIV-infected women in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.BMC cancer · 2015Article
- Evolution of Cooperation Patterns in Psoriasis Research: Co-Authorship Network Analysis of Papers in Medline (1942-2013).PloS one · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research endeavours require the collaborative effort of an increasing number of individuals. International scientific collaborations are particularly important for HIV and HPV co-infection studies, since the burden of disease is rising in developing countries, but most experts and research funds are found in developed countries, where the prevalence of HIV is low. The objective of our study was to investigate patterns of international scientific collaboration in HIV and HPV research using social network analysis. Through a systematic review of the literature, we obtained epidemiological data, as well as data on countries and authors involved in co-infection studies. The collaboration network was analysed in respect to the following: centrality, density, modularity, connected components, distance, clustering and spectral clustering. We observed that for many low- and middle-income countries there were no epidemiological estimates of HPV infection of the cervix among HIV-infected individuals. Most studies found only involved researchers from the same country (64%). Studies derived from international collaborations including high-income countries and either low- or middle-income countries had on average three times larger sample sizes than those including only high-income countries or low-income countries. The high global clustering coefficient (0.9) coupled with a short average distance between researchers (4.34) suggests a "small-world phenomenon." Researchers from high-income countries seem to have higher degree centrality and tend to cluster together in densely connected communities. We found a large well-connected community, which encompasses 70% of researchers, and 49 other small isolated communities. Our findings suggest that in the field of HIV and HPV, there seems to be both room and incentives for researchers to engage in collaborations between countries of different income-level. Through international collaboration resources available to researchers in high-income countries can be efficiently used to enroll more participants in low- and middle-income countries.
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.