ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2023
Bibliometric analysis of the uveitis literature and research trends over the past two decades.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveThis study aimed to examine the publication patterns and present a current view of the field of uveitis using a bibliometric analysis.
designBibliometric analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive search of three databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane was conducted from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2022. Search results from all three databases were subjected to analysis by Bibliometrix, an R programme that analyses large literature dataset with statistical and mathematical models. Visualisation of collaboration networks and relevance between countries was presented with VOSviewer.
resultsA total of 26 296 articles were included in the analysis. The field of uveitis has undergone a significant exponential growth since 2000, with an average growth rate of 4.14%. The most substantial annual growth was between the years 2021 and 2022 (36%). According to the corresponding author's countries, the three most productive countries were Turkey (3288, 12.6%), the USA (3136, 12%) and Japan (1981, 7.6%). The USA (243, 31.4%), England (117, 15%) and Germany (62, 8%) are the top three countries that contributed to clinical trials. The average international collaboration of all countries was 2.5%.
conclusionsUveitis literature has undergone significant growth in the past two decades. The demographic factors of publishing countries lead to their various productivity and types of these uveitis studies, which is closely associated with the countries' scientific research resources and patient populations.
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.