Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38855302›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2024

Visual analysis of trustworthiness studies: based on the Web of Science database.

Zhen Zhang, Wenqing Deng, Yuxin Wang, Chunhui Qi

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Zhen ZhangFaculty of Education, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang, China.
Wenqing DengFaculty of Education, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang, China.
Yuxin WangFaculty of Education, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang, China.
Chunhui QiFaculty of Education, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Trustworthiness is the most significant predictor of trust and has a significant impact on people's levels of trust. Most trustworthiness-related research is empirical, and while it has a long history, it is challenging for academics to get insights that are applicable to their fields of study and to successfully transfer fragmented results into practice. In order to grasp their dynamic development processes through the mapping of network knowledge graphs, this paper is based on the Web of Science database and uses CiteSpace (6.2.R4) software to compile and visualize the 1,463 publications on trustworthy studies over the past 10 years. This paper aims to provide valuable references to theoretical research and the practice of Trustworthiness. The findings demonstrate that: over the past 10 years, trustworthiness-related research has generally increased in volume; trustworthiness research is concentrated in industrialized Europe and America, with American research findings having a bigger global impact; The University of California System, Harvard University, and Yale University are among the high-production institutions; the leading figures are represented by Alexander Todorov, Marco Brambilla, Bastian Jaeger, and others; the core authors are distinguished university scholars; however, the level of cooperation of the core author needs to be improved. The primary journal for publishing research on trustworthiness is the

Indexed as

CiteSpacemapping knowledge domainstrustworthinessvisual analysisWeb of Science

Identifiers

PMID38855302
PMCPMC11157118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.