Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40201848›Full record

ArticleOpen veterinary journal2025

Bibliometric analysis of the use of pathological techniques in camel research.

Ahmed Aljazzar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open veterinary journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. The impact of parasitic diseases on dromedary camel (Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ahmed AljazzarDepartment of Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine, King Faisal University, Al Hofuf, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Camel pathology research has evolved significantly over the past five decades, reflecting the growing recognition of camels' importance in agriculture, zoonotic disease control, and economic contributions. However, there has been limited evaluation of research trends, thematic advancements, and international collaborations in this field. Aim: This study aimed to conduct a bibliometric analysis of camel pathology research published between 1971 and 2024. The study identified key research themes, assessed collaboration patterns, and highlighted gaps to guide future research efforts in camel pathology. Results: The analysis included 297 research articles retrieved from Scopus. A steady increase in publications was observed, with a notable surge after 2010 due to advancements in molecular techniques and rising global interest in camel health. Thematic analysis identified well-established motor themes, such as camel histopathology and tuberculosis, while basic themes, such as infertility and postmortem studies, were found to be underexplored. Collaboration analysis revealed the dominance of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, emphasizing their pivotal role in camel research. However, under- represented regions, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, showed limited participation in collaborative networks. Conclusion: This study highlights the transition from traditional pathological techniques to advanced molecular and epidemiological approaches, enabling better disease detection, diagnosis, and management in camels. Despite significant progress, the slower adoption of cutting-edge technologies in certain regions indicates the need for targeted capacity-building initiatives. By addressing these gaps and fostering international collaborations, camel pathology research can contribute to sustainable development, improved public health, and improved global food security.

Indexed as

BibliometricsCamelusPathologyAnimalsBibliometricCamelHistopathologyPathologyTrend

Identifiers

PMID40201848
PMCPMC11974291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.