ReviewJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Bibliometric analysis of highly cited papers on oral mucosal lesions in COVID-19: Trends and impact in medical literature.
Review in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Publication trends in research on oral rabies vaccination in animals: A bibliometric analysis.Open veterinary journal · 2025Article
- Bibliometric insights into molecular and bioinformatic research trends on ameloblastoma.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Bibliometric analysis of 100 most cited papers on oral proliferative verrucous leukoplakia.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchReview
- Bibliometric analysis of randomized controlled trials in oral submucous fibrosis.Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFPReview
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Bibliometric analysis of highly cited papers facilitates researchers in formulating strategic research possibilities and addressing gaps in specific domains. In this context, a bibliometric analysis was conducted to identify published papers on "oral mucosal lesions in COVID-19" within medical literature. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed in the Scopus database in July 2023. Relevant articles were retrieved, reviewed, and data for the bibliometric analysis was recorded. Network visualization of authors, countries, and keywords was generated using VOSviewer software. Results: The analyzed articles were published over the last three years, from 2020 to 2023, with the highest output observed in 2021. The citation count for individual papers ranged from 1 to 340, with a mean of 22.325 ± 58.93 citations. A total of 37 journals were involved in publishing papers on this topic, and five authors each contributed three papers. Notably, Brazil made the highest number of contributions with eight papers. Among the 40 papers, 19 were review papers and 16 were articles discussing various aspects of oral mucosal lesions in COVID-19 patients. Additionally, six papers were identified as systematic reviews, designated with a high level of evidence. Conclusions: This study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of papers published on "oral mucosal lesions in COVID-19." The findings will assist researchers in identifying impactful papers, understanding the prevailing research trends, and guiding future research directions in this domain. The insights gained from this analysis can contribute significantly to advancing knowledge and improving patient care in this critical area of study.
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.