ReviewCureus2023
The 100 Top-Cited Studies on Loneliness: A Bibliometric Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Loneliness Prevalence and Correlates Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults in Taiwan: Clinical Utility of Brief Screening Measures.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Article
- Multidimensional Loneliness Among University Students: A Latent Profile Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Food Insecurity and Loneliness in the Former Soviet Countries.International journal of public health · 2025Article
- Development and validation of the Upstream Social Interaction Risk Scale (U-SIRS-13): a scale to assess threats to social connectedness among older adults.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study explores characteristics of the top 100 most-cited articles on loneliness. A systematic search was carried out using the Thomson Reuters Web of Science Core Collection to collect studies on loneliness from inception to June 1, 2022. The initial search resulted in 6,250 search results, which included articles, book chapters, conference proceedings, editorials, and letters. Two authors independently screened the literature and extracted the data. The study supervisor removed any discrepancies. Top 100 papers (articles and reviews) on loneliness published in English were extracted. Data analysis and visualization were performed on Excel, Web of Science (WoS) Data Analyzer, and VOSviewer 1.6.16. The total number of citations of the 100 top-cited articles was 42,044, ranging from 203 to 2,201 per article. All of the studies were published from 1989 to 2021, and the years with the highest number of top-cited articles published were 2003 and 2008. Most publications were from the following journals: Computers in Human Behavior, Developmental Psychology, Psychological Science, Psychology, and Aging (n=4 each). The most cited article was titled "UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure" by Russell, DW, in the Journal of Personality Assessment. The most productive institute was the University of Chicago. The two most productive authors were Cacioppo, JT, and Hawkley, LC. Of the 100 top-cited publications, 87 were original articles and 13 were reviews. The top three WoS categories were psychology multidisciplinary, gerontology, and psychiatry. In total, 37 author keywords were elicited and further clubbed into eight distinct clusters. The study provides new insight into loneliness research, which may help doctors, researchers, and stakeholders achieve a more comprehensive understanding of trends and influential contributions to the field and highlight under-researched areas, which could be the basis for future investigation.
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.