ReviewForensic science, medicine, and pathology2025
Investigation of authors' self-citation in contemporary forensic odontology literature.
Review in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2025. 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
This bibliometric investigation aimed to analyze trends in author self-citation within prominent forensic odontology literature and explore potential correlations between self-citation rates and publication attributes. We reviewed seven leading forensic sciences journals from 2003 to 2023. For this analysis, we focused on two specific timeframes: 2003-2007 and 2018-2023. Our review encompassed original research articles, reviews, and case reports. Eligible articles underwent detailed examination for article and author attributes and citation metrics. Utilizing univariable and multivariable negative binomial regression analyses, we explored potential associations between the number of self-citations and various publication characteristics. This study analyzed 415 articles related to forensic odontology, of which 237 (57.1%) included at least one self-citation. Key findings highlight prevalent topics such as dental age estimation and human dental identification. A significant portion of the studies involved prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional designs, and there has been a notable increase in the number of reviews and meta-analyses in recent years compared to an equivalent past period. Self-citation was observed in over half of the analyzed articles, with a median total citation count of 31 and a median self-citation rate of 7.5%. Further bibliometric investigation is required to establish definitive conclusions regarding author self-citation patterns in forensic odontology literature, particularly by exploring longer time spans.
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.