ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2022
The 100 most influential articles in myopia: a bibliometric analysis.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The 100 most cited articles on trachoma: a bibliometric analysis.International ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Ocular Complications of Myopia: Bibliometric Analysis and Citation Networks.Reports (MDPI) · 2023Article
- Vault predicting after implantable collamer lens implantation using random forest network based on different features in ultrasound biomicroscopy images.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Visualized analysis of research on myopic traction maculopathy based on CiteSpace.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Highly cited publication performance in the ophthalmology category in the Web of Science database: a bibliometric analysis.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Improving myopia awarenessInternational journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo identify and characterize the 100 most influential articles in the field of myopia over the last decades.
methodsArticles on myopia published between January 1975 and March 2020 were searched through the Web of Science Core Collection database. Two independent authors reviewed and determined the 100 most cited articles. The characteristics of each eligible article were recorded, including authors, institutions, countries, journals, publication date, total citations (TCs), annual citations (ACs), research focus and article type.
resultsThe top 100 most influential articles were published between 1983 and 2016, with 1999 as the most prolific year. The mean number of TCs was 288 (range: 193-537) and the mean number of ACs was 19 (range: 7-109). Treatment and epidemiology of myopia were the most important research focus. These articles were published in 21 journals led by
conclusionThis bibliometric analysis can provide us with concise information about the development trend of research in the field of myopia in the past few decades, and provide an important reference for researchers to guide future research.
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.