ArticleHeliyon2022
The professional network underlying cerebral palsy intervention research based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in international journals: authors' communities, institutional networks, and international collaboration.
Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A bibliometric analysis of cerebral palsy from 2003 to 2022.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Craft techniques in conductive education to support the employment of persons with mobility impairments.Heliyon · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cerebral palsy (CP) is a well-researched area of medical science, health science and special education. The growing number of publications every year makes difficult to monitor the progress of this research domain, therefore there is a broad interest for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventions in international peer-reviewed scientific journals. Our goal is to analyze the scientific activity of authors who published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of CP intervention studies. To identify the active researchers, institutions, and countries, we used scientometric and bibliometric indicators that assess their productivity, collaborations, and the citations (utilization/usefulness of their studies), also paying attention to the institutional background and the network structure of national and international collaboration. We used Scopus to search for articles and included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of intervention studies, a total of 180 works, in our sample. Our results showed active and large communities of prolific authors and groups of authors with diverse institutional background. Most institutions are universities, hospitals, but we found various other organizations among them. Most of the universities are leading educational institutions according to international rankings; some of them are among the top-ranking ones. In geographical terms, the North American, Australian, and European regions are the most active and most interconnected ones. We assume organizations other than scientific collaboration networks also play a major role in the productivity and dissemination of scientific knowledge in this research area. As an example, we could mention the network, including the US, Australian and European registers. Authors living and working in the Far East, the Middle East or in South America also started to publish relevant articles in the 2010s. The research network structuring scientific knowledge in this area is flourishing.
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.