ArticleReumatologia2025
Three decades of collaboration in rheumatology: a comprehensive co-authorship network analysis (1994-2023).
Article in Reumatologia, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study investigated the evolution of collaborative research in rheumatology over 3 decades (1994-2023), utilizing co-authorship network analysis to uncover key contributors, structural trends, and global collaboration patterns. The analysis aimed to provide insights into the dynamics of research cooperation and the factors influencing its development. Material and methods: A total of 31,231 publications on rheumatology, indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection, were analyzed. The co-authorship network was constructed using Python (Version 3.10.5) in the PyCharm environment (Version 2022.1.3). Macro-level metrics, including network density, clustering coefficient, components, and average path length, were evaluated alongside micro-level indicators such as degree centrality, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality to characterize the network's structure and dynamics. Additionally, temporal trends were examined to assess changes in collaboration patterns over time. Results: The analysis revealed an expansion in publication volume and collaboration over the 3 decades, with persistent fragmentation evidenced by low network density (below 0.0005) and numerous disconnected components. The number of active researchers and institutions participating in collaborations increased significantly, contributing to enhanced regional cooperation. Key researchers, including Nicolino Ruperto, Josef S. Smolen, and Yoshiya Tanaka, emerged as central figures, consistently facilitating knowledge exchange and collaboration. Localized, tight-knit collaboration patterns, indicated by high clustering coefficients, persisted despite limited global integration. These findings suggest that while rheumatology research networks are becoming more inclusive, significant disparities in connectivity across regions remain. Conclusions: This comprehensive analysis highlights the dual trends of growth and fragmentation in rheumatology research collaboration. While local collaborations thrive, broader integration remains a challenge, underscoring the need for initiatives fostering global connectivity in the research community. Enhancing international collaboration and reducing resource gaps between regions could accelerate advancements in rheumatology research, benefiting both the scientific community and patients worldwide.
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.