ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2026
Australian Podiatry Research in Rheumatology: A Bibliometric Analysis.
Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Australian Podiatry Research in Rheumatology: A Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundTo conduct a bibliographic analysis of English language foot and ankle research pertaining to rheumatology published by Australian authors.
methodsThe Scopus database search was conducted to identify all Australian rheumatology articles published by podiatric authors in English from 1970 to 2024. Bibliometric analysis was performed using an open-source tool based on the R language. Citations, journals, authors, institutions and countries were described. Publications were manually categorised according to research type, level of evidence and funding source.
resultsThe search strategy yielded 89 eligible articles, which received a total of 2438 citations and were published by 200 authors. The most frequent journals were Arthritis Care & Research and Osteoarthritis and Cartilage each with 9 articles or 10% of total publications. The most published institution was La Trobe University (affiliation of 151 authors). Most of the Australian rheumatology articles focused on the evaluation of treatments and therapeutic interventions (n = 35; 39%) and 11 articles (12%) provided Level I evidence. Forty-two publications (47%) were supported by Category 1 funding, however, 29 (33%) reported no research funding.
conclusionRheumatology represents just 5% of Australian podiatry research. Despite this, it attracts high citation rates relative to number of publications and is well supported by Category 1 funding in comparison to other research fields. Funding sources outside of competitive Category 1 grants appear to be limited however, and research scope is narrow with a high number of evaluative studies conducted. Rheumatology research would benefit from an increase in available funding sources and a broader research scope that informs disease prevention and evidence-based clinical care.
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.