ArticleMedicine2023
A leading author of meta-analysis does not have a dominant contribution to research based on the CJAL score: Bibliometric analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends and hotspots related to traditional and modern approaches on acupuncture for stroke: A bibliometric and visualization analysis.Medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- A comprehensive approach for clustering analysis using follower-leading clustering algorithm (FLCA): Bibliometric analysis.Medicine · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere have been nearly 200 thousand meta-analysis articles indexed by web of science (WoS) since 2013. To date, a bibliometric analysis of leading authors of meta-analyses that contribute to the field has not been conducted. Analyzing trend patterns in article citations and comparing individual research achievements (IRAs) are required following the extraction of meta-analysis articles. Using trend analysis, this study aims to verify the hypotheses that; The leading author has a dominant research achievement and; Recent articles that deserve worth reading can be identified.
methodsIn the WoS collection, we identified the top 20 authors with the most articles related to meta-analysis. Using coword analysis, 2882 articles were collected to cluster author collaborations and identify the top 3 authors with the highest weighted centrality degrees. Based on the CJAL (category, journal raking by impact factor, authorship, and L-index on article citation) score and absolute advantage coefficient (AAC), we compared the IRAs and identified the author who dominated the field significantly beyond the next 2 authors. In WoS collection, coword analysis was used to highlight the characteristics of research domains for the top authors contributing to meta-analyses. The selection of articles that deserve reading is based on a temporal heatmap.
resultsThe top 2 authors were Young-Ho Lee (South Korea), Patompong Ungprasert (U.S.), and Brendon Stubbs (US) with CJAL scores of 240.71, 230.99, and 240.71, respectively. Based on the weak dominance coefficient (AAC = 0.49 < 0.50), it is evident that the leading meta-analysis author does not possess a significant dominant position over the next 2 leading authors in IRAs. Coword analysis was used to illustrate the characteristics of the 3 authors research domains. The 3 articles worth reading were selected based on a trend analysis of the last 4 years using the temporal heatmap.
conclusionA coword analysis of meta-analysis studies identified 3 leading authors. There was no evidence that 1 author possessed a dominant position due to the lower AAC (=0.49 < 0.50) for the leading author. As we have demonstrated in this study, the CJAL score and the AAC can be applied to many bibliographical studies in the future.
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.