ReviewEFORT open reviews2024
Research trends and hotspots of myositis ossificans: a bibliometric analysis from 1993 to 2022.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Artificial intelligence in immune checkpoint inhibitor research: A bibliometric analysis of the landscape.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Metatarsal coalition with pseudarthrosis mimicking bone tumor: two case reports and literature review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Review
- Iliopsoas myositis ossificans after transverse myelitis in a child: a case report.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Challenges in the diagnosis of fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva with the ACVR1 mutation (c.774G > C, p.R258S): a case report and review of literature.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myositis ossificans (MO) is characterized by benign heterotopic ossificans in soft tissues like muscles, which can be classified into nonhereditary MO and fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP). Although MO has been studied for decades, no research reviewed and analyzed the features of publications in this field quantitatively and qualitatively. Using bibliometrics tools (bibliometrix R package, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace), we conducted a bibliometric analysis of 1280 articles regarding MO in the Web of Science Core Collection database from 1993 to 2022. The annual number of publications and related research areas in the MO field increased gradually in the past 20 years. The USA contributed the most percentage (42.58%) of articles. The University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) and the Journal Bone published the most articles among all institutions and journals. Kaplan FS and Shore EM from UPenn were the top two scholars who made the largest contributions to this field. Keyword analysis showed that research hotspots changed from traumatic MO and clinical management of MO to the genetic etiology, pathogenesis, and treatment of FOP. This study can provide new insights into the research trends of MO and helps researchers grasp and determine future study directions more easily.
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.