ReviewCureus2024
The Intellectual Landscape of Nanovaccines: A Bibliometric Perspective on Scientific Progress and Future Directions.
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.
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.
- Global research trends in biliary atresia-related liver fibrosis: a bibliometric analysis (2000-2024).Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
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
This bibliometric study provides a comprehensive analysis of the burgeoning field of nanovaccine research, leveraging data sourced from Scopus and employing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart for the meticulous screening, inclusion, and exclusion of relevant studies. Utilizing sophisticated bibliometric tools, such as Biblioshiny and CiteSpace, we dissected the expansive literature to unearth critical insights into the annual scientific output, identifying key contributors and pivotal publications that have shaped the domain. The analysis delineates the most influential authors, sources, and globally cited documents, offering a macroscopic view of the field's intellectual structure and growth trajectory. Trend topics and thematic mapping underscored the evolution of research foci, from fundamental immunological mechanisms to cutting-edge nanomaterial applications. Factorial analysis and keyword co-occurrence networks revealed the intricate associations and thematic concentrations within the literature. The study's robust methodology also pinpointed the keywords exhibiting the strongest citation bursts, signifying emergent areas of intense academic interest. Networks of cited authors illuminated collaborative patterns among scholars, while timeline network visualizations of country collaborations depicted the global interplay in nanovaccine development. Crucially, this study identified notable research gaps and practical implications, suggesting directions for future investigation and highlighting the translational potential of nanovaccines in public health and personalized medicine. This bibliometric investigation not only maps the current landscape but also charts a course for the trajectory of nanovaccine research, emphasizing its role as a cornerstone of innovative immunotherapeutic strategies.
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.