ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2025
Bibliometric analysis in sulcus vocalis research: 44 years of perspective.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Resection of the sulcus using CO2 laser and reconstruction with microflap to improve the voice.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to provide a comprehensive bibliometric overview of the scientific landscape on sulcus vocalis by analyzing publication trends, global research productivity, and thematic evolutions in the literature from 1980 to 2024.
methodsA total of 150 English-language articles and reviews related to sulcus vocalis published between 1980 and 2024 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. Bibliometric and scientometric analyses were performed using VOSviewer and CiteSpace software. Citation data, keyword co-occurrence, author and institutional collaborations, and country-level networks were evaluated to reveal research trends and influential contributions.
resultsThe annual number of publications showed a significant increase after 2010, peaking between 2019 and 2021. The most prolific countries were the USA (n = 52), Brazil (n = 15), and Japan (n = 14), with the University of Wisconsin and Harvard University identified as the leading institutions. Keyword analysis revealed a historical focus on "medialization laryngoplasty," shifting toward "platelet-rich plasma" in recent years. The Journal of Voice and The Laryngoscope were the most common publication journals. The most cited articles addressed vocal fold biomechanics, diagnostic criteria, and surgical interventions. Network analysis highlighted the USA and Belgium as central actors in international collaboration.
conclusionSulcus vocalis research has evolved into a dynamic, interdisciplinary field integrating clinical, surgical, and regenerative medicine approaches. Despite increased academic output, a lack of consensus on classification and long-term treatment outcomes persists. The findings underscore the need for systematic reviews, novel therapeutic models, and AI-assisted diagnostic tools. This study maps the structure of sulcus vocalis research and provided a foundation for guiding future multidisciplinary and international collaborations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40652134What 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.