ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2021
Co-authorship network analysis of Iranian researchers on osteoporosis.
Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- MXene nanomaterials in biomedicine: A bibliometric perspective.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Pooled it
- First Systematic Review on Health Communication Using the CiteSpace Software in China: Exploring Its Research Hotspots and Frontiers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- iGraphCTC: an inter-connected graph convolutional network for comprehensive clinical trial collaborations.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Social network analysis of a decade-long collaborative innovation network between hospitals and the biomedical industry in China.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Mind the osteoporosis care gap with timely diagnosis: an executive summary of nationwide osteoporosis Campaigns 2019-2021.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2023Article
- Farm Animal Welfare Is a Field of Interest in China: A Bibliometric Analysis Based on CiteSpace.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
- Bibliometric analysis of global research trends on male osteoporosis: a neglected field deserves more attention.Archives of osteoporosis · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our purpose was to investigate the co-authorship network of Iranian researchers in the field of osteoporosis. We used 1328 documents retrieved from databases of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science in the analysis. The network had 183 authors in 13 clusters, low cohesion, and slow information flow between its members. PURPOSE: This study aims to investigate the pattern and characteristics of cooperation between Iranian researchers in the field of osteoporosis through the co-authorship social network analysis.
methodsAll papers on osteoporosis with at least one Iranian author were retrieved from medical databases of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from 2009 to 2019. After the removal of duplicates, the title and abstract of the papers were reviewed by two independent reviewers, and screening was performed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were entered into the BibExecl software, and the different spelling forms in the author names were manually merged. The authors' co-occurrence matrix was then developed and entered into the UCINET software and the cohesion indexes (density, diameter, and average distance) and centrality indexes (degree, betweenness, closeness, and eigenvector) for the co-authorship network were estimated. The institutions and countries of the authors of the entered papers were also used in the network analysis and their socio-graphs were drawn.
resultsWe used 1328 documents in the analysis. The co-authorship network was constructed only for authors with at least 5 papers. The network had 183 nodes (authors) in 13 clusters. Its density was 0.063 and its number of components was 2. The large component encompassed 95.6% and the small component 4.4% of authors. The average distance in the main component of the network was 3 and its diameter was 6. Larijani B was ranked first in the network in terms of degree, betweenness, closeness, and eigenvector centrality. In terms of the contribution of organizations in osteoporosis publications, Tehran University of Medical Sciences (with 35.5% of papers published in WoS database), Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (14.7%), and Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (9.3%) retained in the first to third place, respectively. In papers published on the WoS, most Iranian authors have collaborated with authors from the USA, Belgium, Canada, and the UK respectively.
conclusionThe co-authorship network had low cohesion with slow information flow between its members. The collaboration with young researchers by the network's active, efficient, and broker authors will lead to the maintenance and development of the network.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33876312What 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.