ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2026
Mapping the landscape of OSA research: a scientometric comparison between otolaryngology and stomatology contributions.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundObstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a complex and prevalent sleep-related breathing disorder that often necessitates interdisciplinary management, particularly by otolaryngologists and stomatologists. However, the respective academic contributions of these two specialties to OSA research have not been systematically compared.
methodsThis study aimed to provide the first scientometric analysis comparing publications on OSA authored by otolaryngologists and stomatologists, highlighting disciplinary strengths, research focus, and collaborative opportunities.
resultsA total of 4,852 and 2,277 publications related to OSA were identified from the Scopus database as originating from otolaryngology and stomatology disciplines, respectively. Among the top 300 most-cited articles in each group, publications led by otolaryngologist accumulated 40,482 citations and an h-index of 111, whereas publications authored by otolaryngologist received 30,359 citations with an h-index of 94. While otolaryngologists frequently investigated topics such as uvulopalatopharyngoplasty, tonsillectomy, endoscopy, and upper airway obstruction, stomatologists were more focused on mandibular advancement, orthodontics, malocclusion, and cephalometric analysis. In terms of treatment keywords, otolaryngology literature emphasized soft tissue surgeries and conservative measures like continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and weight loss, whereas stomatology literature highlighted oral appliance therapy, orthognathic surgery, and mandibular repositioning.
conclusionThese findings reveal distinct thematic focuses that reflect each specialty’s clinical perspective. Notably, the scale and citation impact of publications from otolaryngology significantly exceed those from stomatology, underscoring the need for enhanced interdisciplinary collaboration. This study provides a foundational overview of the scientific landscape of OSA research and offers insight into future integration of multidisciplinary expertise for improved diagnosis and management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41746418What 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.