Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37346333›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2023

A bibliometrix-based visualization analysis of international studies on conversations of people with aphasia: Present and prospects.

Wei Wei, Zhanhao Jiang

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Wei WeiGraduate School, Xi'an International Studies University, School of Foreign Studies, Xi'an Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Zhanhao JiangSchool of Foreign Languages, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a rapid increase in the number of people with aphasia due to brain lesions worldwide, which has prompted researchers to carry out in-depth studies on the pathogenesis, inducement and prognosis of aphasia from neurology, clinical medicine, psychology and other disciplines. With the deepening of research and understanding of aphasia, it is generally believed that a single discipline can no longer meet the needs of the academic community. Therefore, multidisciplinary integration has emerged and achieved fruitful results. This paper, based on the biblioshiny package run by R, conducts bibliometric analysis on the international interdisciplinary research status of conversation and aphasia, predicts its future development direction, and provides reference for relevant domestic research from international source journals. The results indicate that led by Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries, the international conversational aphasia research has formed a complete system, and formed a "descriptive study of patients with language disorders" and "applied study of rehabilitation treatment". In the future, while continuing to focus on these two categories of research, the empathy ability of conversational partners and medical staff may be taken into account, in order to better contribute to improving patients' quality of life.

Indexed as

AphasiaBibliometrixBiblioshinyConversationVisualized analysis

Identifiers

PMID37346333
PMCPMC10279826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.