ArticleMedicine2020
Bibliometric and visualized analysis of global research on fungal keratitis from 1959 to 2019.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Species Diversity in the Fusarium solani (Neocosmospora) Complex and Their Pathogenicity for Plants and Humans.Doklady biological sciences : proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Biological sciences sections · 2022Article
- Analysis of international publication trends in artificial intelligence in ophthalmology.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2022Review
- The facilitating effect of blue light on the antifungal agent susceptibilities of passaged conidia from the ocular-derived Fusarium solani species complex.Lasers in medical science · 2022Article
- Open Innovation in Medical and Pharmaceutical Research: A Literature Landscape Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFungal keratitis is one of the leading causes of ocular morbidity. The prognosis of fungal keratitis is poorer than many other forms of keratitis but the research of which relatively lags behind. We conducted a bibliometric and visualized analysis in order to characterize the overall status, general trends and current foci of keratomycosis research field.
methodsLiterature database ranged from 1959 to 2019 was obtained from web of science core collection and analyzed by Citespace and VOSviewer software.
resultsA total of 1906 papers of fungal keratitis were retrieved and derived a 27,917 references document set. The number of publications increased rapidly in past 30 years. Cornea was the journal published most papers of keratomycosis. The leading countries were United States of America (USA), India and Peoples Republic of China (PRC), from where came the most productive and most cited institutions and authors. Co-cited reference analysis revealed the most cited manuscripts were concerned about epidemiology or spectrum. Lens-associated Fusarium, amphotericin B, voriconazole, corneal cross-linking, predisposing factor are some of the high frequency topics in clustered co-cited reference analysis and co-occurrence keywords analysis. Burst detection analysis of keywords showed ocular drug delivery was the new research foci.
conclusionFrom this study, we received an overall view to the current status, trends and hot spots of fungal keratitis research field. Visualized bibliometric analysis is an efficient way for literature learning and useful for future researchers.
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.