ReviewCureus2024
Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Clinical Trials on the Therapeutic Potential of Essential Oils (1967-2024).
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of aromatherapy on objective physiological outcomes in adult ICU patients: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Bibliometric Analysis of Gut Microbiota and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Research Trends and Frontiers.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2026Article
- A bibliometric analysis of biopesticides in corn pest management: Current trends and future prospects.Heliyon · 2024Review
- Protective effects ofFrontiers in toxicology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Essential oils, aromatic compounds extracted from various parts of plants, have garnered significant attention in recent years due to their diverse therapeutic properties and potential applications in healthcare. This analysis delves into the publication trends, productivity patterns, most relevant contributors, coauthorship networks, most frequently used keywords, and their co-occurrence, topic trends, thematic evolution, and collaboration between various countries in clinical trials exploring the therapeutic potential of essential oils. Six hundred sixty-one clinical trials were selected from the PubMed database for analysis, authored by 2959 authors, and published across 359 sources. The analysis identified Horrobin DF as the most contributing author based on the number of published clinical trials, followed by Kasper S, McGuire JA, and Schlafke S. Lotka's law underscores the distribution of authors' productivity, revealing a small number of highly productive authors. Coauthorship analysis identifies significant collaborations among authors and institutions, with prominent contributors like Siegfried Kasper and institutions like Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. Furthermore, the analysis highlights leading journals like
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.