ReviewCureus2025
A Bibliometric Analysis on Research Trends in Paediatric Epilepsy Treatment From 2005 to 2025.
Review in Cureus, 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
The objective of this bibliometric analysis was to evaluate trends in paediatric epilepsy treatment research from 2005 to 2025. Through assessing which journals, countries, authors, and institutions have been the most productive and mapping trends in keywords used over time, the study aims to reveal emerging areas of interest and inspire ideas for future research. A total of 1418 relevant documents were retrieved from the Web of Science database. Documents outside of the target time period and non-English documents were excluded. From the 1152 remaining documents, 17 duplicates were removed using OpenRefine (OpenRefine). The final 1135 documents were then analysed using VosViewer (VOSviewer - Visualizing scientific landscapes) and Bibliometrix (https://www.bibliometrix.org/). The analysis revealed a stable number of annual global publications until a notable increase since 2018. The USA leads the way with the greatest research output (298 articles) and the highest number of total citations (6565). Harvard University emerged as the most productive institution (111 articles), whilst Epilepsia was the most productive journal (253 articles). Keyword co-occurrence analysis revealed a shift in research from earlier documents focusing more on traditional drug therapies to more recent articles focusing on cannabidiol based therapies, laser ablation, and vagal nerve stimulation. This bibliometric analysis provides new insights into the evolution of paediatric epilepsy treatment research. It helps to demonstrate the leading contributors in the field over the last 20 years, as well as highlighting emerging new trends. The results of the analysis underline the shift in the research away from more traditional treatments to investigating alternative therapies, including cannabidiol based therapies, dietary interventions, laser ablation, and vagal nerve stimulation. Through identifying these trends in the research and mapping author collaboration networks, it is hoped that this study can provide a foundational reference for researchers when planning future studies.
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.