ReviewCureus2024
Tracking Research Momentum and Scholarly Impact: A Bibliometric Analysis of Magnetotherapy.
Review in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This bibliometric study investigates the research landscape of magnetotherapy, also known as magnetic field therapy, which utilizes magnetic fields to promote healing, reduce pain, and improve overall health and well-being. The study uses bibliographic data from Scopus and employs Biblioshiny and CiteSpace for analysis. Key aspects examined include annual scientific production, most relevant authors, co-citation of cited authors, most relevant sources, countries' scientific production, and collaborations. Additional analyses feature a historiograph, trend topics, thematic maps, and keywords with the strongest citation bursts. Findings highlight significant trends in research activity, identify influential contributors, and map out collaborative networks in the field. The study reveals a noticeable absence of long-term studies and standardized treatment protocols in magnetotherapy research. Identified research gaps indicate the need for interdisciplinary studies and a deeper mechanistic understanding of magnetotherapy. Practical implications emphasize the potential for enhanced clinical applications, healthcare policy integration, and medical device innovations. The study underscores the importance of educational and training programs for healthcare professionals. Addressing these gaps and leveraging practical implications can significantly advance the field of magnetotherapy.
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.