ArticleJMIR diabetes2024
Scientific Production Dynamics in mHealth for Diabetes: Scientometric Analysis.
Article in JMIR diabetes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe widespread use of mobile technologies in health care (mobile health; mHealth) has facilitated disease management, especially for chronic illnesses such as diabetes. mHealth for diabetes is an attractive alternative to reduce costs and overcome geographical and temporal barriers to improve patients' conditions.
objectiveThis study aims to reveal the dynamics of scientific publications on mHealth for diabetes to gain insights into who are the most prominent authors, countries, institutions, and journals and what are the most cited documents and current hot spots.
methodsA scientometric analysis based on a competitive technology intelligence methodology was conducted. An innovative 8-step methodology supported by experts was executed considering scientific documents published between 1998 and 2021 in the Science Citation Index Expanded database. Publication language, publication output characteristics, journals, countries and institutions, authors, and most cited and most impactful articles were identified.
resultsThe insights obtained show that a total of 1574 scientific articles were published by 7922 authors from 90 countries, with an average of 15 (SD 38) citations and 6.5 (SD 4.4) authors per article. These documents were published in 491 journals and 92 Web of Science categories. The most productive country was the United States, followed by the United Kingdom, China, Australia, and South Korea, and the top 3 most productive institutions came from the United States, whereas the top 3 most cited articles were published in 2016, 2009, and 2017 and the top 3 most impactful articles were published in 2016 and 2017.
conclusionsThis approach provides a comprehensive knowledge panorama of research productivity in mHealth for diabetes, identifying new insights and opportunities for research and development and innovation, including collaboration with other entities, new areas of specialization, and human resource development. The findings obtained are useful for decision-making in policy planning, resource allocation, and identification of research opportunities, benefiting researchers, health professionals, and decision makers in their efforts to make significant contributions to the advancement of diabetes science.
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.