ReviewHeliyon2024
Knowledge mapping of digital medicine in cardiovascular diseases from 2004 to 2022: A bibliometric analysis.
Review in Heliyon, 2024. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To review studies on digital medicine in cardiovascular diseases (CVD), discuss its development process, knowledge structure and research hotspots, and provide a perspective for researchers in this field. Methods: The relevant literature in recent 20 years (January 2004 to October 2022) were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). CiteSpace was used to demonstrate our knowledge of keywords, co-references and speculative frontiers. VOSviewer was used to chart the contributions of authors, institutions and countries and incorporates their link strength into the table. Results: A total of 5265 English articles in set timespan were included. The number of publications increased steadily annually. The United States (US) produced the highest number of publications, followed by England. Most publications were from Harvard Medicine School, followed by Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham Women's Hospital. The most authoritative academic journal was Conclusion: Recently, there has been a significant surge of interest in the investigation of digital medicine in CVD. This initial bibliometric study offers a comprehensive analysis of the research landscape pertaining to digital medicine in CVD, thereby furnishing related scholars with a dependable reference to facilitate further progress in this domain.
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.