ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2020
Publication trends of research on uveal melanoma during 2000-2020: a 20-year bibliometric study.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Turkish Retinoblastoma Research: A Bibliometric Analysis (1966-2024).Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Research hotspots and frontiers in acral melanoma: A bibliometric analysis from 1999 to 2023.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Publication trends of Leber congenital amaurosis researches: a bibliometric study during 2002-2022.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Publication trends of primary angle-closure disease during 1991-2022: a bibliometric analysis.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Research landscape and trends of melanoma immunotherapy: A bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Publication Trends of Research on Retinoblastoma During 2001-2021: A 20-Year Bibliometric Analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Publication Trends of Research on Polypoidal Choroidal Vasculopathy During 2001-2020: A 20-Year Bibliometric Study.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Global incidence and trends of ocular cancer: A bibliometric analysis.Advances in ophthalmology practice and researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Uveal melanoma (UM) is the most prevalent primary intraocular malignancy in adults. Despite a high rate of success in controlling it as a local disease, it is prone to distant metastasis, and its mechanism of metastasis has not been elucidated. This study analyzes trends in UM research and compares contributions from different countries, regions, institutions and authors. We collected all publications related to UM published from 2000 to 2020 from the Web of Science database. GraphPad Prism 6 was used to collect publication data and analyze publication trends. VOSviewer was used for data visualization. A total of 1,710 publications were considered. The United States contributed the most publications [668] and citations (19,605 times) as of 2020 with the highest H-index value [67]. Keywords were classified into three clusters, namely, clinical study, tumor-related study and gene mutation-related study. Average appearing years (AAY) of keywords were calculated. BAP1 (AAY of 2016.3), SF3B1 (AAY of 2015.8) and GNA11 (AAY of 2015.5) were identified as major focuses of this field. We conclude that the United States, Germany, England and the Netherlands have been the most productive regions in terms of UM research over the past two decades. Gene mutations such as GNAQ, GNA11 and BAP1 mutations are identified as potential research focuses.
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.