ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Mapping the Scientific Landscape of Diabetes Research in Malaysia (2000-2018): A Systematic Scientometrics Study.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of type-2 diabetes and prediabetes in Malaysia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Metabolomics: Uncovering Insights into Obesity and Diabetes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Temporal Trends in the Burden of Diabetes and Its Risk Factors Across the Western Pacific Region Between 1990 and 2044: A Systematic Analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews · 2025Article
- Brownfield-related studies in the context of climate change: A comprehensive review and future prospects.Heliyon · 2024Review
- Mapping Knowledge Landscapes and Emerging Trends of the Links Between Bone Metabolism and Diabetes Mellitus: A Bibliometric Analysis From 2000 to 2021.Frontiers in public health · 2022Review
- Evolving Trends and Research Hotspots in Disaster Epidemiology From 1985 to 2020: A Bibliometric Analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The escalated burden of diabetes on the population's health has catalyzed rigorous scientific research to produce appropriate evidence for treatment and control. Malaysia suffers from the leading diabetes epidemic within the Western Pacific region. It is crucial to map the scientific landscape of diabetes research for the country to identify trends in productivity and determine whether research efforts are directed toward the needs-gaps priority for evidence synthesis that could be used for the drafting of policies and guidelines. This systematic scientometrics study was conducted to map the scientific research output (trends and distribution, citation frequency, keywords link visualization, and thematic cluster conceptualization) related to diabetes between 2000-2018 in Malaysia. Using three international databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus) and one local database (MyCite), scientific publication records related to diabetes in Malaysia between 2000 and 2018 were retrieved and analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Microsoft Excel 2016, EndNote X9.2, BibExcel 2016, GraphPad Prism 8.0.1, VOS viewer software 1.6.13, and R software version 1.3.959 were used to analyze the trend and contents of diabetes publications. A total of 2094 publication records that accounted for 35,497 citations were analyzed. Kuala Lumpur was the most scientifically productive state in Malaysia, contributing 754 papers.
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.