ArticleEuropean burn journal2025
Scientific Production on Chemical Burns: A Bibliometric Analysis (1946-2024).
Article in European burn journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChemical burns represent a persistent global health challenge due to their high prevalence, causing lifelong disabilities and socioeconomic burdens. Although research on chemical burns has expanded over the past century, no comprehensive study has mapped the intellectual structure, global collaboration patterns, and thematic evolution of scientific production on chemical burns to determine how research in the area has evolved and the existence of gaps or imbalances that need to be addressed.
objectiveThe aim was to analyze the scientific production on chemical burns using bibliometric methods, identifying key contributors, evolving themes, and research gaps.
methodsEligible documents contained the MeSH descriptor and were listed both in PubMed (1946 to 2024) and in the Web of Science Core Collection. The documents were analyzed with Bibliometrix version 5.0 and VOSviewer version 1.6.20. The metrics included were annual productivity, citation networks, co-authorship patterns, and keyword co-occurrence.
resultsThe analysis included 3943 articles from 757 journals. The annual average was 25.8 articles, with a growth rate of 0.65% from 1946 to 2024. The USA produced the most articles (n = 1547), followed by China (n = 890). The USA also led in international collaboration, working with 26 countries. Harvard University was the leading institution (n = 325) and
conclusionsThe results show slight growth in scientific production on chemical burns. The USA and China are leading research in this field, and the main reported finding was eye burns.
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.