Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29871851›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018

Visualizing Collaboration Characteristics and Topic Burst on International Mobile Health Research: Bibliometric Analysis.

Lining Shen, Bing Xiong, Wei Li, Fuqiang Lan, Richard Evans, Wei Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Charting the Future of Oral Health: A Bibliometric Exploration of Quality-of-Life Research in Dentistry.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Social Acceptance of Mobile Health among Young Adults in Japan: An Extension of the UTAUT Model.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lining ShenSchool of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7311-8777
Bing XiongSchool of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7558-1845
Wei LiSchool of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0749-5942
Fuqiang LanSchool of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0294-6206
Richard EvansDepartment of Business Information Management and Operations, University of Westminster, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6367-0560
Wei ZhangSchool of Medicine and Health Management, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0178-0750

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the last few decades, mobile technologies have been widely adopted in the field of health care services to improve the accessibility to and the quality of health services received. Mobile health (mHealth) has emerged as a field of research with increasing attention being paid to it by scientific researchers and a rapid increase in related literature being reported.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to analyze the current state of research, including publication outputs, in the field of mHealth to uncover in-depth collaboration characteristics and topic burst of international mHealth research.

methodsThe authors collected literature that has been published in the last 20 years and indexed by Thomson Reuters Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). Various statistical techniques and bibliometric measures were employed, including publication growth analysis; journal distribution; and collaboration network analysis at the author, institution, and country collaboration level. The temporal visualization map of burst terms was drawn, and the co-occurrence matrix of these burst terms was analyzed by hierarchical cluster analysis and social network analysis.

resultsA total of 2704 bibliographic records on mHealth were collected. The earliest paper centered on mHealth was published in 1997, with the number of papers rising continuously since then. A total of 21.28% (2318/10,895) of authors publishing mHealth research were first author, whereas only 1.29% (141/10,895) of authors had published one paper. The total degree of author collaboration was 4.42 (11,958/2704) and there are 266 core authors who have collectively published 53.07% (1435/2704) of the total number of publications, which means that the core group of authors has fundamentally been formed based on the Law of Price. The University of Michigan published the highest number of mHealth-related publications, but less collaboration among institutions exits. The United States is the most productive country in the field and plays a leading role in collaborative research on mHealth. There are 5543 different identified keywords in the cleaned records. The temporal bar graph clearly presents overall topic evolutionary process over time. There are 12 important research directions identified, which are in the imbalanced development. Moreover, the density of the network was 0.007, a relatively low level. These 12 topics can be categorized into 4 areas: (1) patient engagement and patient intervention, (2) health monitoring and self-care, (3) mobile device and mobile computing, and (4) security and privacy.

conclusionsThe collaboration of core authors on mHealth research is not tight and stable. Furthermore, collaboration between institutions mainly occurs in the United States, although country collaboration is seen as relatively scarce. The focus of research topics on mHealth is decentralized. Our study might provide a potential guide for future research in mHealth.

Indexed as

bibliometric analysisbibliometricscollaboration characteristicsinternational mobile healthmHealthresearch trendstelemedicinetopic bursts

Identifiers

PMID29871851
PMCPMC6008511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.