ArticleInfection2025
Bibliometrics analysis and knowledge mapping of pertussis vaccine research: trends from 1994 to 2023.
Article in Infection, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immunological insights into why pertussis continues to be endemic.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Review
- The Application of Checklist in Chronic Disease: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to use bibliometric methods to explore the evolving landscape, hotspots, and emerging frontiers of pertussis vaccine research, providing deeper insights into the current research landscape and guiding future vaccine development efforts.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of the Web of Science Core Collection database (WoSCC) from January 1, 1994, to December 31, 2023, employing search terms related to vaccination (vacc* or immun*) and pertussis (pertussis, Whooping Cough, Bordetella pertussis, B. pertussis, Bordetella pertussis infection, or B. pertussis infection) in the Title or Author keywords fields. Bibliometrics analysis of pertussis research was performed utilizing the bibliometrix-biblioshiny package in RStudio, alongside CiteSpace and VOSviewer software.
resultsIn total, 2,623 records were analyzed, comprising 89.63% (n = 2,351) original research articles and 10.37% (n = 272) review articles. The study revealed that academic research on the pertussis vaccine was growing at a rate of 4.64% per year. The United States and Canada lead in the number of publications. GlaxoSmithKline and the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention- United States emerged as leading institutions, with Halperin SA and Locht C as the most active authors. Vaccine was the most influential journal. Most studies focused on vaccine effectiveness duration, vaccination schedules for high-risk groups, and people's attitudes toward vaccination.
conclusionOur analysis showed increasing interest of researchers in pertussis literature, yet current research mainly emphasized expanding vaccine coverage and optimizing strategies, neglecting new vaccine development. This emphasized the need for prioritizing novel pertussis vaccines to tackle the resurgence challenge.
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.