ReviewIranian journal of public health2019
Analysis of Scientific Collaboration Networks among Authors, Institutions, and Countries Studying Adolescent Myopia Prevention and Control: A Review Article.
Review in Iranian journal of public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tracking the evolution of tuberculosis research priorities in Africa: a longitudinal bibliometric analysis from 2003-2023.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Intelligent technologies in operating room nursing: A bibliometric analysis of research.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Article
- Global Research Trends, Hotspots, Impacts, and Emergence of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Health and Medicine: A 25-Year Bibliometric Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Descriptive Mappings of Global-Related Research Studies on Invertebrates in the Context of Agriculture.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2024Article
- Project portfolio risk management. Bibliometry and collaboration Scientometric domain analysis.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Bibliometric Analysis on GABA-A Receptors Research Based on CiteSpace and VOSviewer.Journal of pain research · 2023Article
- A systematic bibliometric analysis on the clinical practice of CGM in diabetes mellitus from 2012 to 2022.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Review
- Review
- Contribution of theInternational archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2021Article
- Trends in diabetes research outputs in South Africa over 30 years from 2010 to 2019: A bibliometric analysis.Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2021Review
- Bioinformatics analysis of the gene expression profile of retinal pigmental epithelial cells based in single-cell RNA sequencing in myopic mice.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2021Article
- Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research on Perinatal Palliative Care.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Review
- Increasing collaborative research output between early-career health researchers in Africa: lessons from the CARTA fellowship program.Global health action · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies related to the prevention and control of myopia in adolescents have increased rapidly, but only a few have measured the levels of scientific collaboration among authors, institutions and countries in this field. Thus, in this study, we aimed to reveal the status and levels of scientific collaboration in this field.
methodsThe research population included all published papers in the field of adolescent myopia prevention and control indexed in the Web of Science databases from 1997-2016. The co-authorship networks were drawn using SATI (Statistical Analysis Toolkit for Informetrics), Ucinet and VOS viewer (Visualisation of Similarities viewer). Active authors and some measures of co-author network, including degree centrality, closeness, betweenness, density and diameter, were also assessed.
resultsOverall, 610 records were obtained, and a number of publications developed through an increase in different collaboration types, with cooperation among authors and institutions as the most apparent ones. The top ten active authors and institutions were identified. The density of cooperative networks of the top 70 authors and the first 69 institutions were 0.043 and 0.011, respectively, with corresponding diameters of five and six, respectively. Seven distinct clusters formed the cooperation network among 38 countries. The top three clusters were centered in China, the United States and Australia, also identified as the most productive countries.
conclusionThe flow of information is slow and the collaboration among authors and institutions in the network are not close enough. Thus, multiple collaboration types should be encouraged in this field, especially among countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31110972PMC6500532W2944644514What 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.