ReviewThe Indian journal of radiology & imaging2026
A Technical Note on Bibliometric Analysis by Biblioshiny and VOSviewer.
Review in The Indian journal of radiology & imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global research trends and emerging hotspots in endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty: a bibliometric and visualization analysis.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Mapping the global landscape of artificial intelligence in pancreatic cancer research: A bibliometric and visualization analysis.Medicine · 2026Article
- Mapping the global landscape of robot-assisted hernia surgery research: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Global evolution of robot-assisted cholecystectomy research in the era of artificial intelligence: a bibliometric and knowledge-mapping study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- From waste to valuable compounds: Ecological methods for the extraction and microencapsulation of bioactive compounds from Agri-food waste.Food chemistry: X · 2026Review
- Chrononutrition and Diabetes: Mapping the Scientific Landscape Through Bibliometric Insights.Cureus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bibliometric analysis is a powerful tool for mapping and evaluating scientific research publications across various dimensions. Several databases support bibliometric analysis, such as Web of Science and Scopus. However, these are subscription-based resources, which may limit access in resource-constrained settings. In contrast, PubMed is freely accessible and specifically focused on biomedical literature. However, PubMed offers limited analytics, primarily restricted to article types and year-wise publication trends. Despite the limitations, data from PubMed can help in basic bibliometric analysis. This review article provides a basic technical guide to key methods used in bibliometric analysis. The analysis can be conducted for a research topic (e.g., yoga and mental stress), an institution's research output, a journal's publication trends, or an individual author's contributions. For any bibliometric analysis, two components are essential-data and analysis software. For data source, PubMed was used, and two free-to-use tools-Biblioshiny and VOSviewer-were used for analysis. Basic technical procedures are explained with examples. This guide serves as an introductory resource for those seeking to perform bibliometric analysis using freely available tools and data sources.
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.