ReviewJournal of pain research2024
Bibliometric Analysis of the Development, Current Status, and Trends in Adult Degenerative Scoliosis Research: A Systematic Review from 1998 to 2023.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Research trends, hotspots, and thematic evolution in scoliosis and osteoporosis: a bibliometric mapping review.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Establishment of a novel asymmetric force degenerative lumbar scoliosis aging bipedal rat model.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Article
- Global research trends in early onset scoliosis (2000-2025): a Scopus-based bibliometric analysis.Spine deformity · 2026Article
- Pathogenic mechanisms of adult degenerative scoliosis.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Innovation and entrepreneurship education for medical students: a global bibliometric analysis (2000-2024).Medical education online · 2025Article
- Characteristics of the top 100 cited original studies on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS) research lacks bibliometric analysis, despite numerous studies. This study aimed to systematically analyze the development, current status, hot topics, frontier areas, and trends in ADS research. Patients and Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection database from January 1998 to June 2023. Information regarding the country, institution, author, journal, and keywords was collected for each article. Bibliometric analysis was performed using VOSviewer and Citespace software. Results: The final analysis covered 1695 publications, demonstrating a steady increase in ADS research. The United States was the most prolific and influential country with 684 publications, followed by China and Japan. The University of California System was the most productive institution with 113 publications. Shaffrey, CI (47 publications) and Lenke, LG (41 publications) were top authors. The analysis revealed seven main research clusters: "intervertebral disc", "adult spinal deformity", "lumbar fusion", "minimally invasive surgery", "navigation", "postoperative complications", and "mental retardation". Keywords with strong bursts of activity included degeneration, prevalence, imbalance, classification, lumbar spinal stenosis, and kyphosis. Conclusion: In conclusion, in recent years, ADS research has undergone rapid development. This study analyzed its hot topics, advancements, and research directions, making it the latest bibliometric analysis in this field. The findings aim to provide a new perspective and guidance for clinical practitioners and researchers.
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.