ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Cardiopulmonary exercise test: A 20-year (2002-2021) bibliometric analysis.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reference Values for Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test in Children-How to Report Them Correctly?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Machine learning models for reinjury risk prediction using cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) data: optimizing athlete recovery.BioData mining · 2025Article
- Revisiting the clinical utilization of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in Saudi Arabia after 2 decades: A cross-sectional study.Saudi medical journal · 2024Article
- Ventilatory Efficiency: Is This the Key to Unlock the Full Potential of Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Article
- Decoding the mechanism of vascular morphogenesis to explore future prospects in targeted tumor therapy.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The clinical application value of cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) has increasingly attracted attention, and related research has been increasing yearly. However, there is no summary analysis of the existing CPET literature. This is the first bibliometric analysis of publications in the CPET. Methods: CPET-related articles published between 2002 and 2021 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database. The search was limited to Articles and Reviews in English. CiteSpace software was used to conduct collaborative network analysis of countries/regions, institutions, authors, the co-occurrence of subject categories and keywords, and co-citation analysis of authors, journals, and references. Results: A total of 4,426 publications were identified. During the study period, the number of published articles increased yearly. Developed countries from the Americas and Europe led the field. The University of Milan was the most prolific institution, with Ross Arena and Wasserman K being the most prolific and co-cited authors in the field, respectively. Cardiovascular System & Cardiology and Respiratory System were the main areas involved. Moreover, heart failure, oxygen uptake, and prognostic value were the central themes. Conclusions: CPET had attracted widespread attention, and the number of publications will increase substantially according to the current growth trends. In the future, CPET is expected to be further adopted in large-scale clinical studies as a means of assessing the functional ability of patients to verify the efficacy of related interventions. High-quality evidence-based medical CPET-related indicators is expected to be used in clinical diseases risk prediction.
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.