ArticleMedicine2017
China's growing contribution to sepsis research from 1984 to 2014: A bibliometric study.
Article in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Publication Trends for Alzheimer's Disease Worldwide and in China: A 30-Year Bibliometric Analysis.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2019Pooled it
- Global Research Trends in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research: A Bibliometric Analysis over a 50-Year Period.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Global Research Trends in Shock Wave for Therapy from 1990 to 2019: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study.BioMed research international · 2021Article
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to analyze the global trends of sepsis research and investigate China's contribution by comparing the quantity and quality of sepsis-related publications.
methodsSepsis-related publications were main retrieved from the Web of Science online database by using the keywords "sepsis" or "septic shock." Bibliometric indicators, including the number of publications, total citation frequency, citation frequency per paper, h-index, research type, orientation, organization, author, journal, and funding support were analyzed.
resultsFrom 1984 to 2014, a total of 70,564 papers regarding sepsis research were published worldwide. 3.60% of which were contributed by authors from Chinese institutions. Although this contribution was less than the Unites States, Germany, England, France or Japan, a notable trend of increase in a number of scientific publications (r = 0.57, P < .001), with an average annual growth rate of 20.78%, was observed. The quality of the publications was relatively low in China. Basic research was a clear dominant representation, accounting for 50.46% of China's sepsis research. The research centers in China were mainly located in Beijing (5 centers), Shanghai (4 centers), and Hong Kong (3 centers). The National Natural Science Foundation of China supported the most Chinese sepsis researches.
conclusionGlobal sepsis research developed swiftly during the 1984 to 2014 period. The USA was in the forefront of sepsis research. Although the data indicated that China had a large increasing rate of publications, there was a considerable gap in the quality of articles between China and other developed 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.