ArticleCurrent medical science2023
Aortic Dissection Research in China: Analysis of Studies Funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
Article in Current medical science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridging macro bibliometrics and micro molecular mechanisms: an integrated analysis of global aortic dissection research.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) has made great progress in promoting the development of aortic dissection research in recent years. This study aimed to examine the development and research status of aortic dissection research in China so as to provide references for future research.
methodsThe NSFC projects data from 2008 to 2019 were collected from the Internet-based Science Information System and other websites utilized as search engines. The publications and citations were retrieved by Google Scholar, and the impact factors were checked by the InCite Journal Citation Reports database. The investigator's degree and department were identified from the institutional faculty profiles.
resultsA total of 250 grant funds totaling 124.3 million Yuan and resulting in 747 publications were analyzed. The funds in economically developed and densely populated areas were more than those in underdeveloped and sparsely populated areas. There was no significant difference in the amount of funding per grant between different departments' investigators. However, the funding output ratios of the grants for cardiologists were higher than those for basic science investigators. The amount of funding for clinical researchers and basic scientific researchers in aortic dissection was also similar. Clinical researchers were better in terms of the funding output ratio.
conclusionThese results suggest that the medical and scientific research level of aortic dissection in China has been greatly improved. However, there are still some problems that urgently need to be solved, such as the unreasonable regional allocation of medical and scientific research resources, and the slow transition from basic science to clinical practice.
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.