Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31110972›Full record

ReviewIranian journal of public health2019

Analysis of Scientific Collaboration Networks among Authors, Institutions, and Countries Studying Adolescent Myopia Prevention and Control: A Review Article.

Wenwen Wu, Yaofei Xie, Xiangxiang Liu, Yaohua Gu, Yuting Zhang, Xinlong Tu, Xiaodong Tan

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Contribution of theInternational archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wenwen WuSchool of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, Hubei Province, China.
Yaofei XieSchool of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, Hubei Province, China.
Xiangxiang LiuSchool of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, Hubei Province, China.
Yaohua GuSchool of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, Hubei Province, China.
Yuting ZhangSchool of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, Hubei Province, China.
Xinlong TuSchool of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, Hubei Province, China.
Xiaodong TanSchool of Health Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430071, Hubei Province, China.
Wuhan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CollaborationMyopiaPrevention and controlSocial network analysis

Identifiers

PMID31110972
PMCPMC6500532
OpenAlexW2944644514

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.