ArticlePeerJ2019
Biomaterials research of China from 2013 to 2017 based on bibliometrics and visualization analysis.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. 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.
- 'Ultrasound Examination' of the Musculoskeletal System: Bibliometric/Visualized Analyses on the Terminology (Change).Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Article
- Research Status and Hotspots of Chronic Osteomyelitis: A Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Trends of calcium silicate biomaterials in medical research and applications: A bibliometric analysis from 1990 to 2020.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Top 100 Cited Articles on Osteoarthritis from 1990 to 2020.Rheumatology and immunology research · 2021Article
- A Bibliometric Review of Artificial Extracellular Matrices Based on Tissue Engineering Technology Literature: 1990 through 2019.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- A global bibliometric and visualized analysis in the status and trends of subchondral bone research.Medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to evaluate the changes of development trends and research hotspots of biomaterials research from 2013 to 2017, which can identify the general information of papers and explore the changes of research content, thus providing perspectives for the development of biomaterials in China and other countries.
methodsData of the paper were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection, and then analyzed by the bibliometric and CiteSpace visualization analysis.
resultsIt was found that a total of 3,839 related papers had been published from the year 2013 to 2017. The analysis of the articles showed that the annual quantity and quality of the articles in the biomaterials research have been increasing since 2013, and the Wang L / Chinese Academy of Sciences were the most productive author/institution. Meanwhile, the keywords "in vitro", "scaffold", "nanoparticle" , "mechanical property", and "biocompatibility" have the relatively higher frequency, and the keywords "apatite", "deposition", and "surface modification" have the strongest burst citation.
conclusionsAfter statistics and analysis, we found that biomaterials is a promising research field. The study may be helpful in understanding research trends in this field.
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.