Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33868113›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2021

A Scientometric Systematic Review of Entrepreneurial Wellbeing Knowledge Production.

Nicolás Contreras-Barraza, Juan Felipe Espinosa-Cristia, Guido Salazar-Sepulveda, Alejandro Vega-Muñoz, Antonio Ariza-Montes

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nicolás Contreras-BarrazaFacultad de Economía y Negocios, Universidad Andres Bello, Viña del Mar, Chile.
Juan Felipe Espinosa-CristiaFacultad de Economía y Negocios, Universidad Andres Bello, Viña del Mar, Chile.
Guido Salazar-SepulvedaDepartamento de Ingeniería Industrial - Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, Concepción, Chile.
Alejandro Vega-MuñozPublic Policy Observatory, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Antonio Ariza-MontesSocial Matters, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Córdoba, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article presents a scientometric study regarding entrepreneurship and its relationship with wellbeing. The study presents a systematic review and measures impact and relational character to identify the relevance of countries, research organizations, and authors in the field of entrepreneurial wellbeing. The study poses the following research questions: What is the nature of the evolution of scientific knowledge in the entrepreneurial wellbeing field? What is the nature of the concentration in terms of geographical distribution and co-authorship level of knowledge production in the entrepreneurial wellbeing field? What are the knowledge trends in knowledge production for entrepreneurial wellbeing literature? The contribution of this research is two-fold. First, in terms of methodology, it contributes study into the use of a more robust approach to search for the scientometric trends about entrepreneurship wellbeing in addition to the PRISMA review tools and the PICOS eligibility criteria. Secondly, the study presents research updates in the search for results for the last 2 years of knowledge production. This upgrade is particularly important in a research field that presents exponential growth, where 2019 and 2020 presented almost double the amount of knowledge production compared to 2017 and 2018.

Indexed as

entrepreneurshiphappinessjob-satisfactionmental-healthsatisfaction

Identifiers

PMID33868113
PMCPMC8044348

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.