ReviewRegenerative biomaterials2016
Scientific collaboration: a social network analysis based on literature of animal-derived regenerative implantable medical devices.
Review in Regenerative biomaterials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Social network analysis of a decade-long collaborative innovation network between hospitals and the biomedical industry in China.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Scope, Influence, and Interdisciplinary Collaboration: The Publication Portfolio of the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program From 2006 Through 2017.Evaluation & the health professions · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The collaboration network of English publications on animal-derived regenerative implantable medical devices based on tissue engineering technology and its evolving processes and current states were mapped in this paper. A total of 10 159 English papers published before 1 January 2015 were obtained in eight databases. Social network analysis was conducted on these papers by utilizing UCINET software and Statistical Analysis Software for Informatics researched and developed by Peking University. The collaboration network has evolved from scattered formation to single-core dominated, and then to a core-edge one; collaboration has become more frequent and wider; network density and centrality have decreased; USA, UK and China are the top three countries with Wake Forest University, Harvard University and Tufts University being the top three contributing institutions cooperated mostly during the period between 2010 and 2014; plenty of edge institutes exist. In conclusion, more collaboration among different institutions and countries is needed; Edge institutions and developing countries should expand their scope of collaboration.
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.