ReviewHeliyon2024
Research productivity in catamenial epilepsy: A bibliometric analysis of worldwide scientific literature (1956-2022).
Review in Heliyon, 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.
- Current update on surgical management for spinal tuberculosis: a scientific mapping of worldwide publications.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Research on neurotrophic factor for glaucoma: a worldwide bibliometric analysis.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Recent update on cerebral sparganosis: A bibliometric analysis and scientific mapping.Narra J · 2024Article
- Worldwide research on abdominal compartment syndrome: bibliometric analysis of scientific literature (1993-2022).Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2024Review
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
Objectives: To perform a bibliometric analysis as a comprehensive review of publications associated with catamenial epilepsy and discuss the current state of knowledge in the field. Methods: Publications published between 1956 and 2022 were retrieved from the Scopus database. Bibliometric analysis was performed using the R package and VOSviewer to show the data and network of journals, organizations, authors, countries, and keywords. The analysis conducted on October 15, 2022, yielded a total of 320 refinement studies. Results: The number of publications has escalated significantly, particularly in the last 20 years. Catamenial epilepsy-related publications originated mostly from medicine and other subject areas, with the United States having the largest publication output. Collaboration is low at the author, organizational, and national levels, especially in the Asian continent. Publications remain scarce, particularly on practice guidelines, risk assessment, and medication-related research. Based on a keyword analysis, a bibliometric analysis identified possible themes for future investigation. Conclusion: Catamenial epilepsy-related literature is crucial but still insufficient, and further studies are required.
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.