ArticleHeliyon2024
A bibliometric and visualized analysis of the pathogenesis of cataracts from 1999 to 2023.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global research trends in vitreous floaters from 1999 to 2023: a bibliometric analysis.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Influence of Different Cationic Polymer-Based Micelles on the Corneal Behavior and Anti-Cataract Effect of Diosmetin.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Investigating recent advances in pharmacotherapy for acute and chronic ocular pain post-cataract surgery.Expert opinion on pharmacotherapy · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research on the pathogenesis of cataracts is ongoing and the number of publications on this topic is increasing annually. This study offers an overview of the research status, popular topics, and scholarly tendencies in the field of cataract pathogenesis over recent decades，which helps to guide future research directions, and optimize resource allocation. In the present study, we performed a bibliometric analysis of cataract pathogenesis. Publications from January 1, 1999, to December 20, 2023, were collected from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC), and the extracted data were quantified and analyzed. We analyzed and presented the data using Microsoft Excel, VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and Python. In all, 4006 articles were evaluated based on various characteristics, including publication year, authors, countries, institutions, journals, citations, and keywords. This study utilized VOSviewer to conduct visualized analysis, including co-authorship, co-citation, co-occurrence, and network visualization. The CiteSpace software was used to identify keywords with significant bursts of activity. The number of annual global publications climbed from 76 to 277 between 1999 and 2023, a 264.47% rise. Experimental Eye Research published the most manuscripts (178 publications), whereas Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science received the most citations (6675 citations). The most influential and productive country, institution, and author were the United States (1244 publications, 54,456 citations), University of California system (136 publications, 5401 citations), and Yao Ke (49 publications, 838 citations), respectively. The top 100 ranked keywords are divided into four clusters through co-occurrence analysis: (1) secondary cataracts, (2) oxidative stress, (3) gene mutations and protein abnormalities, and (4) alteration of biological processes in lens epithelial cells. Further discussions on the four subtopics outline the research topics and trends. In conclusion, the specific mechanism of cataract formation remains a popular topic for future research and should be explored in greater depth.
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.