Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36624514›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2023

Insights into research on myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury from 2012 to 2021: a bibliometric analysis.

Ming Bai, Jingjing Zhang, De Chen, Mengying Lu, Junfen Li, Zheng Zhang, Xiaowei Niu

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of medical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ming BaiHeart Center, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Jingjing ZhangCenter for Medical Genetics, Gansu Provincial Clinical Research Center for Birth Defects and Rare Diseases, Gansu Provincial Maternity and Child-Care Hospital, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
De ChenThe First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Mengying LuThe First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Junfen LiThe First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Zheng ZhangHeart Center, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Xiaowei NiuHeart Center, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China. ldyy_niuxw@lzu.edu.cn.
Lanzhou University · CNFirst Hospital of Lanzhou University · CNGansu Provincial Maternal and Child Health Hospital · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 82000277
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous studies on myocardial ischemia/reperfusion (MI/R) injury have been undertaken in recent years. Hotspots and developmental trends in MI/R research are being rapidly updated. However, there has been no bibliometric analysis that systematically evaluates existing literature on MI/R injury. Our study explores developments in MI/R research over the past decade, and provides a reference for future research. MATERIALS AND

methodsBoth experimental and clinical publications on MI/R injury from 2012 to 2021 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database. The CiteSpace and VOSviewer tools were used to perform a bibliometric analysis.

resultsA total of 8419 papers were analyzed. The number of annual publications demonstrated an overall upward trend, rising from 629 publications in 2012 to 1024 publications in 2021. China, the USA, Germany, England, and Italy were the top five contributors to MI/R studies. The Fourth Military Medical University in China contributed the most publications (188, 2.23%), while the University College London in England cooperated the most with relevant research institutions. Derek J Hausenloy (University College London), Derek M Yellon (University College London), and Gerd Heusch (University of Essen Medical School) were the top three most active and influential scholars according to the H-index. Among the top 10 journals with the most publications, Basic Research in Cardiology had the highest impact factors. The top three co-cited journals were Circulation, Circulation Research, and Cardiovascular Research. According to a co-cited reference analysis, MI/R research can be divided across 10 major subfields of mitophagy, cardioprotection, inflammation, remote ischemic preconditioning, long non-coding RNA, melatonin, postconditioning, mitochondria, microvascular obstruction, and ferroptosis. After 2018, the keywords with strongest citation bursts included extracellular vesicles, long non-coding RNA, cell proliferation, microRNA, mitochondrial quality control, mitophagy, biomarker, and mitochondrial biogenesis.

conclusionsThe present study reveals the influential authors, cooperating institutions, and main research foci in the field of MI/R injury in the past decade. The latest hotspots are a more in-depth insight into the molecular mechanisms underlying MI/R injury, such as mitochondrial quality control, non-coding RNAs, cell proliferation, and extracellular vesicles.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchMyocardial Reperfusion InjuryBibliometricsCell ProliferationHumansMicroRNAsRNA, Long NoncodingMicroRNAsRNA, Long NoncodingBibliometric analysisCiteSpaceMyocardial ischemia/reperfusion injuryResearch hotspotsVOSviewer

Identifiers

PMID36624514
PMCPMC9827672
OpenAlexW4313814426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.