SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025
Advances in orofacial pain research: a bibliometric analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Orofacial pain has become increasingly prevalent with the advancement of society and economy. Bibliometrics, an interdisciplinary field encompassing mathematics, statistics, and information science, offers insights into the trends, research focal points, and knowledge framework of orofacial pain through quantitative analysis of relevant literature. This study aims to systematically map the evolutionary trajectory of orofacial pain research from 2000 to 2024. It will analyze publication trends, collaborative networks, and emerging hotspots to provide data-driven guidance for future research directions and resource allocation. Methods: This study employed bibliometric analysis to examine literature published between 2000 and 2024 using keywords such as "face pain," "craniofacial pain," "neuralgic facial pain," "myofacial pain," "oral-maxillofacial pain," "oral and maxillofacial pain," and "orofacial pain." Utilizing tools like CiteSpace and VOSviewer, we conducted trend analysis on publication volume, constructed author collaboration networks, and performed keyword co-occurrence analysis. Results: Our analysis revealed a rising publication trend in the field, the establishment of a core group of authors, continuous expansion of collaboration networks, and current research focal points on "diagnostic criteria," "manual therapy," "systematic review," "quality," "joint disorders," "scale," and "care." Conclusion: This study demonstrates that bibliometrics offers a comprehensive and objective quantitative analysis for academic research, aiding researchers in understanding disciplinary developments, providing a scientific foundation for future research directions and resource allocation, and fostering sustainable disciplinary growth and innovation.
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.