ArticleNeurosurgical review2026
Dural reconstruction in the literature: A CiteSpace visualized bibliometric analysis.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Duraplasty (DP) research has shown that surgical approach to dura mater reconstruction is not standardized. The aim of this study is to explore the development of research in duraplasty from a bibliometric perspective, with a focus on literature that discusses material choice. This can elucidate trends in DP literature over time to examine and promote future research directions. Original studies and review articles on duraplasty material related research were obtained from the Scopus database from 2003 to 2024. VOSviewer software was applied to conduct both co-authorship and co-occurrence analyses. CiteSpace was used to examine occurrences of top keywords, visualize collaboration networks, and identify references and keywords with the strongest citation bursts. Top co-cited title word clusters revealed “dural substitute” and “surgical outcome” as central, recurrent keywords. “Dural substitute” emerged as a highly interconnected keyword, reflecting its importance in the literature. Temporal analysis showed that “prognostic factors” emerged consistently around 2008 and “surgical outcome” gained prominence after 2010, with keywords such as “adverse event” and “clinical outcome” spiking in later citation bursts. Material-related keywords including “biocompatible materials” (2006–2011) and “dural substitute” (2011–2017) remained consistent, with “collagen” as the most frequently mentioned non-autologous material. This bibliometric analysis highlights a literature shift from procedural considerations to surgical outcomes and material selection. Similarly, the growth of outcome-based keywords reveals increased scholarly focus on outcomes relevant to patient care. These findings emphasize the need for a standardized approach to material selection in DP. Future studies should continue to evaluate long-term outcomes and patient satisfaction to optimize dural reconstruction techniques.
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.