ArticleJournal of optometry
Bibliometric study of scientific research on optometric visual therapy.
Article in Journal of optometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Citespace-based visualization of nutritional research hotspots for oncology patients.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Stroboscopic visual training: The potential for clinical application in neurological populations.PLOS digital health · 2023Review
- Emerging trends and frontier research on recurrent implantation failure: a bibliometric analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Bibliometric analysis of the research landscape on rice husks gasification (1995-2019).Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Review
- Journal of Optometry Impact Factor: it's been a long way to here.Journal of optometryArticle
- Oculomotor Dysfunctions: Evidence-Based Practice.Journal of optometryArticle
- Optometry research in Spain: Topics of interest, institutions and investigators.Journal of optometryArticle
- Journal of Optometry bibliometrics.Journal of optometryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze scientific research in the field of visual therapy through a bibliometric study.
methodsThe database used in this bibliometric study was SCOPUS, the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature, covering scientific journals, books, and conference proceedings. Using remote downloading techniques, articles published between 1946 and 2017 were selected by entering the main descriptors: "optometric vis* training", "optometric vis* therapy", "vis* therapy", "vis* training" limited to the title, key words and/or abstract. We applied the following bibliometric indicators: Price's index, doubling time and annual growth rate, Price's transience index, Lotka's Law, h factor, and Bradford's zones.
resultsThe authors retrieved 294 original articles from the temporal interval 1946-2017 (articles, reviews, letters to the director, etc.), discarding 15 of them for not meeting the study requirements. Annual growth rate was 39.62%, the timeframe 1987-1983 containing the most number of documents. United States was the country with the highest production, with more than 60% of the records. The most productive institutions are State University of New York System, SUNY State College of Optometry, and Southern California College of Optometry. Classification of authors based on productivity is strongly concentrated in small producers, with a transient index of 80.53. The total number of authors was 488, representing a co-authorship index of 1.75.
conclusionBibliometric studies have become essential tools for assessing scientific publications.
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.