ReviewCureus2024
Exploring the Bacteriophage Frontier: A Bibliometric Analysis of Clinical Trials Between 1965 and 2024.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Bacteriophage-mediated gut microbiota regulation: a bibliometric landscape analysis (2005-2024).Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria has posed a severe threat to global public health, necessitating innovative and alternative approaches to combat this escalating crisis. Bacteriophages, viruses that infect and replicate within bacteria, have emerged as promising candidates for therapeutic intervention against antibiotic-resistant pathogens. This study delves into the intricate landscape of bacteriophage research, unraveling the trends and impact of research in the field. The analysis considers the chronological evolution of research, identifying key contributors, collaborative networks, and thematic trends that have shaped the trajectory of this rapidly growing field. Out of 101717 search results in the PubMed database, 163 clinical trials were identified, revealing a dynamic landscape of research activity between 1965 and 2024. The annual scientific publication analysis unveiled fluctuations in the number of publications, indicating an overall increasing trend. Notably, 2011 emerged as a peak year, signifying heightened activity in bacteriophage research. Employing Lotka's law, the authors' productivity analysis illustrated an inherent imbalance in author contributions, with a majority contributing to a single clinical trial. Co-authorship analysis highlighted leading collaborators. Co-occurrence analysis of keywords unveiled thematic clusters, providing insights into the diverse aspects of bacteriophage research. A word cloud emphasized significant terms, while a thematic map categorized themes into various developmental stages. Antimicrobial Agents, Chemotherapy, and Poultry Science were the most relevant journals based on the number of publications. The analysis of countries' contributions revealed the United States as a leading contributor, with Switzerland and China following suit. Collaboration patterns suggested predominantly independent research, with potential for increased international partnerships in certain regions. Additionally, temporal analysis of authors, institutions, sources, and countries revealed productivity patterns, historical context, and research shifts. By scrutinizing a vast array of scientific literature, this investigation aims to provide a panoramic view of how the scientific community has explored the potential of bacteriophages in the context of antibiotic resistance.
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.