SynthesisFrontiers in veterinary science2023
A century of "Camel Research": a bibliometric analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Present trends, research gaps, and emerging priorities in falcon studies: A four-decade bibliometric analysis from the Arabian Gulf.Veterinary world · 2025Article
- Sulfated Lewis A from the oviduct reservoir selectively binds to camel (Veterinary world · 2025Article
- Article
- Bibliometric analysis of the use of pathological techniques in camel research.Open veterinary journal · 2025Article
- Characterization of the vitrification parameters for oviduct aggregates inFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Trends in camel research in South Asia: A bibliometric approach.Veterinary world · 2024Article
- Recent progress in camel research.Open veterinary journal · 2024Review
- Dromedary camel's welfare: literature from 1980 to 2023 with a text mining and topic analysis approach.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Bibliometrics is a quantitative analytic strategy used to assess the unit of publications per each field of research. Bibliometric studies are commonly employed to examine the current research climate, potential developments, and development trends in certain domains. In this work, the major contributors to camel research throughout the past century are discussed, along with the funding sources, academic institutions, scientific disciplines, and countries that contributed to "Camel Research". Methods: The Web of Science (WOS) database was used to retrieve the publications based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) instructions. Results: There are 7,593 articles dedicated to camel research on the Web of Science (as of August 1st, 2022). Three stages were involved in the publication of a study on camels. At the beginning, from 1877 to 1965, there were fewer than ten new publications per year. The second stage comprised 100 publications per year (1968-2005). Since 2010, nearly 200 new papers have been published each year. King Saud and King Faisal universities contributed > (0.08) of the total publications. While more than 1,000 funding agents were retrieved, the Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) showed the greatest rate of funded projects (0.17). Camel research was included in 238 scientific disciplines. The top disciplines were Veterinary Sciences (0.39), Agriculture Dairy Animal Science (0.144), and Food Science Technology (0.087). Conclusion: There has been an increase in interest in camels in recent years, but the research trends in camel health and production need greater support.
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.