Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35799619›Full record

ArticleCurrent therapeutic research, clinical and experimental2022

Global Research and Scientific Publications on Dexmedetomidine Use in Adults for Anesthesia Care between 2001 and 2021: A Bibliometric Analysis.

Rojnarin Komonhirun, Narut Ruananukun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rojnarin KomonhirunDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Narut RuananukunDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: An increasing number of studies on dexmedetomidine use in adults have been published, but the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine remains contentious. Objective: This study aimed to describe the changing trends and structural relationships of scientific achievements regarding dexmedetomidine over the past 2 decades and provide researchers with information to help them explore better research opportunities. Methods: Quantitative data of publications were retrieved from the Scopus database. Analyses of co-occurrence and collaboration among authors, countries, and key words were conducted using VOSviewer 1.6.17 software. Weighted occurrence and average publications per year were calculated. Results: The 1868 publications retrieved showed an increasing trend of annual publications on dexmedetomidine use in adults between 2001 and 2021. China accounted for the largest contribution to publications in the world (n = 577 [30.89%]). Four key word clusters indicating research hotspots were identified using VOSviewer. The number of articles published in the top 10% of journals in the United States was the highest among all publications from the country (97 out of 201 [48.26%]). Journals from the United Kingdom obtained the highest CiteScore (16.56). Conclusions: The increasing number of publications on dexmedetomidine use reflects growing interest in this topic. Future research should focus on meta-analyses to identify the most effective therapeutic methods. The immunomodulatory effect of dexmedetomidine on health and disease is of particular interest.

Indexed as

Adultsanesthesiabibliometric analysisdexmedetomidine

Identifiers

PMID35799619
PMCPMC9253480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.