ReviewMedicine2018
Trends in conjunctivochalasis research from 1986 to 2017: A bibliometric analysis.
Review in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- The correction of conjunctivochalasis using high-frequency radiowave electrosurgery improves dry eye disease.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Knowledge Mapping of Acupuncture for Cancer Pain: A Scientometric Analysis (2000-2019).Journal of pain research · 2021Article
- Bibliometric and visualized analysis of global research on fungal keratitis from 1959 to 2019.Medicine · 2020Article
- Research Trends and Hotspot Analysis of Conjunctival Bacteria Based on CiteSpace Software.BioMed research international · 2020Article
- The expression of MAPK signaling pathways in conjunctivochalasis.International journal of ophthalmology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the aging of the population and the use of video terminals, the incidence of Conjunctivochalasis is getting higher, and related research is increasing. So our research aimed to use visualization software to display the research trends of Conjunctivochalasis.
methodsRetrieved the document (from 1986 to 2017) of conjunctivochalasis in the web of science core collection, analyzed by Citespace V.
resultsThe main language is English. Article is the key type of document. The average annual number of publications in the time period from 2008 to 2017 was 11.6, which was significantly higher than the period from 1994 to 2007, indicating that the total number of publications has been continuously developed. The law of frequency quoted showed an upward trend yearly. Furthermore, we can find out that Japan, USA, and People's Republic of China were the most productive countries, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine was the most prolific institution, Shanghai Jiaotong University is a key institution. The average IF of journals was 3.0508. Cornea and Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology are core journals. Tseng SCG is the most active scholar. All cited author contributed to 5 classifications. Di PMA paper is a classic literature. Huang YK paper can be regarded as the frontier document. All cited-reference dedicated to 7 categories. Conjunctivochalasis is the hot topic, related to observe indicators, risk factors, treatment, graded diagnosis of conjunctivochalasis, etc. In addition, fibroblast was research hotspot. At length, the cluster map of keyword was divided into 7 categories.
conclusionThis research will help relevant clinicians and researchers to accurately and quickly grasp the research trends in the field, and continue to conduct new research on the basis.
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.