ArticleIntegrative medicine research2025
Bibliometrics and altmetrics in the context of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine.
Article in Integrative medicine research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Knowledge domain and evolutionary trends of P2Y receptors in cardiovascular diseases: a bibliometric and altmetric analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- A bibliometric analysis of preprints in traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine research.Medicine · 2026Article
- Mapping Global Research on Microplastics in Dental Science: Scientometric Trends, Collaborations, and Future Directions.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Global research trends of robotic-assisted surgery in Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery: a bibliometric and visualization analysis based on web of science.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This educational article explores the utility of bibliometrics and altmetrics in evaluating traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) research. We introduce the concept of bibliometrics and altmetrics, provide an overview of the opportunities and challenges in using these analytical techniques, and highlight their future potential in TCIM research. Bibliometrics, based on publication and citation information, offer insights into TCIM research activity, output, scholarly influence, field structure, and collaboration practices. Altmetrics, including social media mentions, downloads, and online bookmarks, can capture the broader societal engagement with TCIM research beyond traditional academic circles. We discuss challenges and opportunities in utilizing these metrics effectively, such as addressing biases, incorporating cultural nuances, and exploring emerging trends. Additionally, we issue a call to action for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to collaborate and leverage bibliometric and altmetric data to advance evidence-based healthcare practices to promote integrative approaches to health and wellness. By embracing a multidimensional approach to research evaluation, stakeholders can harness the potential of bibliometrics and altmetrics to improve TCIM research and healthcare delivery 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.