Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29034422›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2017

A bibliometric analysis of research on haze during 2000-2016.

Chenxi Li, Kening Wu, Jingyao Wu

Erratum issuedAbstract readEditorial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Retrospect and Outlook of Research on Regional Haze Pollution in China: A Systematic Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Chenxi LiSchool of Land Science and Technology, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing, 100083, China. xywglcx@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5019-9949
Kening WuSchool of Land Science and Technology, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing, 100083, China.
Jingyao WuSchool of Land Science and Technology, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing, 100083, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As one of the bibliometric analysis tools, CiteSpace software was applied to quantitatively and visually evaluate global scientific documents of research on haze from 2000 to 2016. Five thousand six hundred six documents from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) of the Web of Science database were statistically analyzed and examined. The distributions on authorship, countries/territories, institutes, and keywords were generated. The amount of publications has increased nearly for the past 17 years. The most productive author was Li J. with 46 articles. The publications on haze research were primarily originated from the USA, China, Germany, and France. By synthetically analyzing the keywords, the dominant hot spots of haze research could be concluded as "aerosol," "atmosphere," "particle," "PM

Indexed as

BibliometricsAir PollutionChinaFranceGermanyBibliometric analysisCiteSpaceHazeWeb of Science

Identifiers

PMID29034422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.