ArticleTurkish archives of otorhinolaryngology2026
Animal Research in Otorhinolaryngology: Shifts in Publication and Practice Over Two Time Periods.
Article in Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this bibliometric analysis is to assess the evolving trends in animal research in otorhinolaryngology over two different time periods. Methods: Articles published in the Science Citation Index Expanded general otorhinolaryngology journals in 2005-2007 and 2018-2020 were retrieved. The relationship of these studies to the Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement (3Rs) principles, emphasizing evidence of Reduction, and Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines were examined, and the predominant subspecialties and the contributions of journals and countries were evaluated. Keyword, research focus, and citation analyses were performed using VOSviewer. Results: Despite a 51.8% increase in the total number of publications between the two study periods, the number of animal studies decreased by 41.5%, along with a 49.1% reduction in the number of animals used. In vivo studies lacking reported animal numbers constituted 10.9% in the first period and 10.3% in the second. "Cochlea" and "ototoxicity" were the most frequent keywords, with seven of the top ten appearing in both periods. Although 58.6% of the animal studies received ten or fewer citations, The Laryngoscope published the most animal studies and was the most-cited journal. Conclusion: This study underscores the importance of adopting the 3Rs and enhancing adherence to guidelines such as ARRIVE. Evaluating the outcomes of animal studies will be essential for responsible and impactful research in otorhinolaryngology. By revealing current research focuses, leading journals, and countries, this study also presents clues for future animal research in the field.
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.