ArticleGenes2021
A Bibliometric and Citation Network Analysis of Myopia Genetics.
Article in Genes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bibliometric analysis of the Vogt‒Koyanagi‒Harada disease literature.International ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Research trends in the field of the gut-brain interaction: Functional dyspepsia in the spotlight - An integrated bibliometric and science mapping approach.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
- Influence of Cytokines on Inflammatory Eye Diseases: A Citation Network Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Global Tendency and Frontiers of Research on Myopia From 1900 to 2020: A Bibliometrics Analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Mapping the global research landscape and hotspot of exercise therapy and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A bibliometric study based on the web of science database from 2011 to 2020.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
- Research trends and hotspots in the relationship between outdoor activities and myopia: A bibliometric analysis based on the web of science database from 2006 to 2021.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo aim of the study was describe the growth of publications on genetic myopia and understand the current research landscape through the analysis of citation networks, as well as determining the different research areas and the most cited publications.
methodsThe Web of Science database was used to perform the publication search, looking for the terms "genetic*" AND "myopia" within the period between 2009 and October 2020. The CitNetExplorer and CiteSpace software were then used to conduct the publication analysis. To obtain the graphics, the VOSviewer software was used.
resultsA total of 721 publications were found with 2999 citations generated within the network. The year 2019 was singled out as a "key year", taking into account the number of publications that emerged in that year and given that in 2019, 200 loci associated with refractive errors and myopia were found, which is considered to be great progress. The most widely cited publication was "Genome-wide meta-analyses of multiancestry cohorts identify multiple new susceptibility loci for refractive error and myopia", an article by Verhoeven et al., which was published in 2013. By using the clustering function, we were able to establish three groups that encompassed the different research areas within this field: heritability rate of myopia and its possible association with environmental factors, retinal syndromes associated with myopia and the genetic factors that control and influence axial growth of the eye.
conclusionsThe citation network offers a comprehensive and objective analysis of the main papers that address genetic myopia.
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.