Women's Footprint in Anti-Doping Sciences: A Bibliometric Approach to Research Impact.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Charting the Scientific Landscape of Indirect Estimation Models in Doping Prevalence Research: A Bibliometric Analysis with Narrative Appraisal.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
   Review
2. From violation to stigma: a literature review of athletes' lived experiences following anti-doping sanctions.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026
   Review
3. Gender Differences in Anti-Doping Rule Violations Based on a 19-Year Data Analysis from the Serbian Anti-Doping Agency: National Study.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
   Article
4. Gender differences in research fields of bioeconomy and rural development-based on sustainable systems in Latin America and Africa regions.PloS one · 2024
   Article

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.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as