Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42548730›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in pediatrics2026

Reframing child abuse and neglect research through a social work lens: a global bibliometric and thematic evolution analysis (2000-2025).

Fatih Cebeci

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Fatih CebeciDepartment of Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Child neglect and abuse research has expanded rapidly, yet its development has rarely been mapped through a social work lens centered on child welfare and child protection systems. This study provides a bibliometric mapping of the child neglect and abuse literature within the social work context from 2000 to 2025. Methods: Records were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus, merged, deduplicated, and screened, yielding a final dataset of 6,132 journal articles and reviews. Using bibliometrix and VOSviewer, annual publication and citation trends, co-authorship networks involving authors, institutions, and countries, co-citation structures, bibliographic coupling, keyword co-occurrence with overlay visualization, and thematic evolution across three periods (2000-2012, 2013-2019, and 2020-2025) were examined. Results: Publication output showed sustained growth, increasing from 109 publications in 2000 to 362 in 2025, with a compound annual growth rate of approximately 5%. Collaboration was concentrated in high-income countries, with the United States serving as a central hub strongly connected to the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. Conceptual mapping indicated a stable core around child abuse and child maltreatment, alongside a shift toward system- and prevention-oriented themes such as child welfare and child protection. Foster care emerged as a prominent motor theme, whereas juvenile justice appeared as a niche theme. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate that the field has expanded while progressively re-centering on welfare and protection systems. The study provides an empirical baseline for future interdisciplinary research and practice-oriented knowledge translation.

Indexed as

bibliometric analysischild abusechild maltreatmentchild neglectchild protectionchild welfarescience mappingsocial work

Identifiers

PMID42548730
PMCPMC13429594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.