ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2015
The 100 most-cited articles on cardiovascular diseases from Mainland China.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A bibliometric study on research trends and hotspots of recurrent aphthous stomatitis.Journal of dental sciences · 2024Article
- Analysis of 100 most cited articles on forensic odontology.The Saudi dental journal · 2020Review
- Citation Classics in Cone Beam Computed Tomography: The 100 Top-Cited Articles.International journal of dentistry · 2018Article
- The 100 most-cited articles on aortic dissection.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2017Article
- Bibliometric analysis of highly cited papers on oral mucosal lesions in COVID-19: Trends and impact in medical literature.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchReview
- Bibliometric analysis of 100 most cited papers on oral proliferative verrucous leukoplakia.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChina, as a rapidly developing country with the largest population of cardiologist in the world, has an increasing importance in the field of cardiology. However, the quantity and quality of research production in the field of cardiology is unclear.
aimsTo analyze the characteristics of the high-level articles published on cardiovascular diseases in Mainland China, and to provide information about achievements and development in cardiovascular research.
methodsWe searched the Science Citation Index Expanded for citations of cardiovascular articles originating in mainland China from 2004 to 2015. For the 100 most frequently cited articles (T100), we evaluated the number of citations, publication time, province of origin, journal, impact factor, topic or subspecialty of the research, and publication type.
resultsThe most frequently cited article received 703 citations at the most, while 50 at the least (mean 91.6 citations per article). T100 originated from 16 provinces, the plurality (n = 34) being from the Beijing. Sixty-seven percent were published during 2006-2009. The publications were in 29 different journals of which Circulation published the most (n = 14). Leading general medical journals Journal of the American Medical Association (n = 1), Lancet (n = 0) and New England Journal of Medicine (n = 0) featured only 1 published article, despite their extremely high impact factors. Of the T100 articles, there were 50 basic researches, 44 clinical researches, 5 meta-analyses and 1 review article. Clinical researches had the highest mean citations (mean 102.6 citations per article).
conclusionsThis study provides a historical perspective on the scientific progress, and the trends in cardiovascular medicine in Mainland China.
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.