SynthesisBioMed research international2021
Scoping Review and Bibliometric Analysis of the Most Influential Publications in Achalasia Research from 1995 to 2020.
Synthesis in BioMed research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Data visualisation in scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics: a cross-sectional analysis.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Global research trends in COVID-19 with MRI and PET/CT: a scoping review with bibliometric and network analyses.Clinical and translational imaging · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify and evaluate characteristics of the most influential articles in achalasia research during the period 1995-2020.
methodsArticles in Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC), and PubMed were scanned from 1995 to 2020 with achalasia as the keyword. We retrieved the articles that met all criteria by descending order after using EndNote to remove the duplicated references. Our bibliometric analysis highlighted publication year, country, journals, and networks of keywords.
resultsFifteen percent of the top 100 most-cited articles were published in
conclusionOur study offers a historical perspective on the progress of achalasia research and identified the most significant evolution in this field. Results showed treatment was the most influence aspect in achalasia.
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.