ArticleBioMed research international2026
Collaboration Networks, Trends, and Scientific Impact in Avoidable Mortality Research (2000-2024): A Bibliometric Study.
Article in BioMed research international, 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.
- Collaboration Networks, Trends, and Scientific Impact in Avoidable Mortality Research (2000-2024): A Bibliometric Study.BioMed research international · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study is aimed at conducting a bibliometric analysis of avoidable mortality from 2000 to 2024 to identify collaboration networks, research trends, and scientific impact in this field.
methodsA bibliometric, descriptive, and retrospective study was conducted using the Scopus Advanced Search interface, controlled vocabulary related to avoidable mortality, and Boolean operators ("AND" and "OR"). Analyses were performed in R (v4.3.1) using the bibliometrix/biblioshiny package and included indicators of publication volume, fractional authorship, total normalized citations, citation counts, and the h-, g-, and m-indexes. International collaboration was assessed using coauthorship indicators and collaboration networks. Bradford's law was applied to identify core journals. In addition, keyword co-occurrence networks and thematic temporal evolution were examined to characterize research fronts and shifts over time.
resultsA total of 3031 documents from 1450 journals were retrieved, with an annual growth rate of 9%. On average, articles received 27.8 citations, totaling approximately 84,000 citations overall. Authors had an average of 5.2 coauthors per article, and 244 single-authored papers were identified. International coauthorship accounted for 23.8% of publications. The United States and the United Kingdom published most frequently in PLOS ONE and BMJ Open. Coauthorship networks revealed weak intergroup connections, with international collaboration concentrated along the US-Western Europe axis. Brazil and South Africa emerged as key regional nodes in the Global South. The thematic focus evolved from prevention- and health-service-related topics to population profiles and injury, and more recently to COVID-19-related terminology and pregnancy.
conclusionThis bibliometric analysis demonstrates a rising interest in avoidable mortality, reflected in increased scientific output and limited intergroup connectivity within international collaboration networks. Only a limited number of authors consistently contribute impactful research in both general and specialized journals. These findings highlight the importance of fostering collaborative, high-quality translational research to inform public policy and address the regional determinants of avoidable mortality, particularly in the Global South.
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.