ArticleAmerican journal of infection control2022
Global analysis of the COVID-19 research landscape and scientific impact.
Article in American journal of infection control, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo consider a 1-year time window of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis to integrate qualitative and quantitative data and provide an in-depth analysis of all COVID-19 publications from geographical, epidemiological and chronological perspectives.
methodsPublications on COVID-19 from December 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020 without document type limitations were extracted from the Web of Science database. Microsoft Excel 2016, GraphPad Prism 9, VOSviewer 1.6.15 and IBM SPSS 21.0 were used to analyze the global epidemiological publication landscape and its correlations, research hotspots around the world and the top 5 countries in terms of publications.
resultsA total of 51,317 documents were analyzed in the present study. The publication trend could be divided into an increasing output stage and an explosive output stage. There were positive correlations between monthly publications, confirmed cases and deaths. Research hotspots from the whole year, from individual quarters, and from the top 5 countries with the most publications were further identified.
conclusionsThe correlation analysis of publications indicated that confirmed cases and deaths were forces driving the scientific output, reflecting the growing trend to some extent. Moreover, the hotspot analysis provided valuable information for scientists, funders, policy and decision-makers to determine what areas should be their focus when faced with public health emergencies in the future.
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.