ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2016
Scientometric analysis and mapping of 20 years of glaucoma research.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bibliometric analysis and visualization of research trends on HIV-1 capsid inhibitors (2000-2022).Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Citation Analysis and Mapping of Iranian's Stem Cell Research Output.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2023Article
- Publication trends of primary angle-closure disease during 1991-2022: a bibliometric analysis.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Analysis of research hotspots in COVID-19 genomics based on citespace software: Bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
- Intricate scientometric analysis and citation trend of COVID-19-related publications in Indian Journal of Ophthalmology during COVID-19 pandemic.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- A scientometric analysis of literature published in Indian Journal of Ophthalmology from 2005 to 2017.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Research Trends and Hotspot Analysis of Conjunctival Bacteria Based on CiteSpace Software.BioMed research international · 2020Article
- Research trends on the relationship between Microbiota and Gastric Cancer: A Bibliometric Analysis from 2000 to 2019.Journal of Cancer · 2020Article
- Review
- Evolution of Glaucoma Research: A Scientometric Review.Journal of current glaucoma practiceReview
- Scientific Publications and Subject Clusters in the Field of Glaucoma: A Scientometric Analysis.Journal of current ophthalmologyArticle
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
aimTo provide a scientometric analysis in the field of glaucoma.
methodsA bibliometric method was used to obtain a view of the scientific production in field of glaucoma by data extracted from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) from 1993 to 2013. Specific parameters were retrieved from the ISI. Articles about glaucoma were analyzed regarding the topics' structure, history, and document relationships using HistCite software. Also, the trends in the most influential publications and authors were analyzed.
resultsThe number of articles was constantly increasing, and most highly cited articles addressed clinical and epidemiologic topics in this field. During the past three years, there has been a trend towards genomic research studies and also more molecular translational research.
conclusionThis was the first scientometric report on glaucoma, analyzing the characteristics of papers and the trends in scientific production. A constant increase was observed in the number of papers, while the subject of papers had a shift in the past three years towards genomic research studies.
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.