ReviewFrontiers in medicine2024
Global research trends in endometrial receptivity from 2000 to 2024: bibliometric analysis.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Global research status and frontiers on ferroptosis in hepatocellular carcinoma: a comprehensive bibliometric and visualized analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Pooled it
- Machine learning-based endometrial ultrasound radiomics habitat analysis for predicting pregnancy outcomes after embryo transfer.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Article
- Impact of hyperglycaemia on cellular microenvironment and function of endometrium and uterine tube: scoping review focused on infertility in diabetic women.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, extensive research has been conducted on endometrial receptivity (ER), with rapidly evolving research hotspots and trends. Our study aimed to explore the development of ER research from 2000 to the present and provide insights for future endeavors. Materials and methods: Relevant research publications on ER from 2000 to 2024 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) database. CiteSpace, VOSviewer and Excel tools were employed to conduct the bibliometric analysis. Results: A total of 3,354 articles were analyzed, revealing an overall upward trend in annual publication numbers, signifying the increasing attractiveness and research value of this field. Globally, China led with a notable advantage of 1,030 publications, followed by the United States (650) and Spain (251), constituting the first tier of international research. Valencia University topped the list of institutions with 108 publications, closely followed by Shanghai Jiao Tong University with 87. Conclusion: This study employs bibliometric analysis to offer researchers in the field of ER a comprehensive perspective. Since 2000, there has been a remarkable surge in the number of publications in the ER research field. These studies primarily concentrate on delving into the pathophysiological mechanisms of ER, with the primary objective of enhancing clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates, benefiting more infertile patients. Currently, addressing the ER issues in patients with recurrent implantation failure represents the forefront of research. The primary treatment approaches currently in use involve optimizing embryo transfer timing and employing innovative strategies such as immunotherapy. These cutting-edge analyses not only provide new insights into the treatment of ER but also offer researchers fresh research directions, and staying abreast of the latest trends and advancements in the field.
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.