ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2025
Improving search strategies in bibliometric studies on machine learning in renal medicine.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 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.
- The front-page filter in bibliometric research: implications for retrieval precision and methodological attribution.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Frontiers and hotspots of 3D technology in prostatectomy from 1999 to 2024: a bibliometric analysis and visualization.Gland surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper evaluated the bibliometric study by Li et al. (Int Urol Nephrol, 2024) on machine learning in renal medicine. Although the study claims to summarize the forefront trends and hotspots in this field, several key issues require further clarification to effectively guide future research. Firstly, while the authors used the "*" wildcard to broaden the search scope, they screened articles only by document type and language, without specific filtering based on titles, abstracts, or full texts. This approach may have led to the inclusion of irrelevant studies, potentially compromising analytical accuracy. Secondly, the authors conducted the search using the Topic (TS) field, which may include articles not closely related to the intended topic. We recommend using Title (TI), Abstract (AB), and Author Keywords (AK) as filtering criteria in future studies to improve search precision. Finally, in the keyword co-occurrence analysis, the authors did not merge synonyms, leading to distortions in keyword frequency rankings; for example, "machine learning" and "machine learning (ML)" were treated as separate terms. We believe that synonym merging would enhance the accuracy of keyword analysis. Overall, the search strategy by Li et al. demonstrates issues such as imprecise scope and lack of synonym integration. To ensure the comprehensiveness and accuracy of future research, we suggest refining the search strategy, employing precise screening steps, and integrating synonyms to improve the quality of bibliometric studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39714749What 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.