Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40622582›Full record

ReviewActa parasitologica2025

Paragonimiasis in Southeast Asia: A 60-Year Bibliometric Analysis (1963-2023).

Harley M Rodriguez, Jose Ma M Angeles

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Acta parasitologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Harley M RodriguezCollege of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila, 547 Pedro Gil Street, Manila, Ermita, 1000, Philippines. hmrodriguez2@up.edu.ph.
Jose Ma M AngelesDepartment of Parasitology, College of Public Health, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, 1000, Philippines.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeParagonimiasis is a neglected tropical disease, often mistaken with common respiratory diseases, has resulted in substantial global literature. However, there is a notable lack of comprehensive literature specifically focused on paragonimiasis in Southeast Asia (SEA). To address this gap, we conducted a bibliometric assessment to provide an overview of existing literature on this disease.

methodsA literature search was performed in SCOPUS, with metadata analysis using the Bibliometrix package in R. Network visualization was conducted through VOSViewer 1.6.20. Additionally, country-specific socio-economic data were obtained from the World Bank and correlated with scientific productivity using Spearman's correlation analysis, with a significant level set at p-value < 0.05.

resultsThis study revealed that Thailand leads in paragonimiasis research within SEA contributing the most in terms of authors, institutions, and publications, followed by Vietnam and the Philippines. Paragonimus heterotremus emerged as the most highly cited Paragonimus species in the region. Keyword co-occurrence analysis identified three key research clusters: clinical epidemiology, molecular genetics, and immunodiagnostics. The latter has gained significant attention in recent years. Among socio-economic factors, research collaborations were statistically significant in enhancing scientific productivity in paragonimiasis research across SEA.

conclusionThe study underscores the importance of strengthening international collaborations to advance paragonimiasis research. It also highlights immunodiagnostics as a crucial area for future research and policy development.

Indexed as

BibliometricsParagonimiasisAnimalsAsia, SoutheasternHumansParagonimusBibliometric analysisImmunodiagnosticsParagonimiasisSoutheast Asia

Identifiers

PMID40622582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.