ReviewDrug testing and analysis2025
Performance-enhancing substances in sport: A scientometric review of 75 years of research.
Review in Drug testing and analysis, 2025. 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.
- Annual Banned-Substance Review 17th Edition-Analytical Approaches in Human Sports Drug Testing 2023/2024.Drug testing and analysis · 2025Review
- Performance-enhancing substances in sport: A scientometric review of 75 years of research.Drug testing and analysis · 2025Review
- Dialogue and sports supplementation: reflections from the social sciences: a systematic review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Review
- Captagon: A comprehensive bibliometric analysis (1962-2024) of its global impact, health and mortality risks.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of performance-enhancing substances not only undermines the core values of sports but also poses significant health risks to athletes. In a fast-evolving doping environment, where sport professionals are constantly seeking novel and illegal means to bypass doping tests, and new substances are regularly detected on the drug market, it is crucial to inform authorities with updated evidence emerging from scientific research. The current study aims to (i) outline the structure of knowledge in the literature on performance enhancers in sports (i.e., most active countries, main sources, most productive authors, and most frequently used keywords); (ii) identify the most impactful documents in the field; and (iii) uncover the main domains of research in the literature. To do so, we conducted a comprehensive scientometric analysis of the literature on doping, sourcing our data from Scopus. Our research involved a document co-citation analysis of 193,076 references, leading to the identification of the 51 most influential documents and seven key thematic areas within the doping literature. Our results indicate that the scientific community has extensively studied the most prevalent doping classes, such as anabolic agents and peptide hormones, and little is still known about the use of contaminated supplements or other types of enhancers identified as emergent trends. Concurrently, technological advancements contributed to the development of more sophisticated doping detection techniques, using blood or urine samples. More recently, the focus has shifted towards the athlete biological passport, with research efforts aimed at identifying biomarkers indicative of doping. The dynamic nature of doping methods underlines the necessity for more robust educational campaigns, aiming at raising awareness among sports professionals and their entourage about the dangers of doping and the intricacies of its control mechanisms.
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.