ArticleLupus science & medicine2026
Global author collaborations in lupus research and publications: a meta-research and network analysis.
Article in Lupus science & medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlobal collaboration is a key driver of advances in complex diseases such as lupus, yet its distribution and structure remain insufficiently characterised. This study aimed to analyse global authorship, productivity and collaboration patterns in lupus publications over the last 10 years.
methodsA bibliometric analysis of lupus-related publications indexed in PubMed between April 2016 and 2026 was conducted. Author affiliations were disambiguated and mapped to countries. Productivity indicators (number of authors and publications), population-standardised metrics and collaboration measures, including coauthorship patterns and the International Collaborative Index (ICI), were calculated. Network visualisation was performed using VOSviewer.
resultsA total of 22 813 publications involving 76 536 authors across 142 countries were identified, with a 74% increase in annual output over the study period. China and the USA had the highest numbers of authors and publications, while smaller countries such as Iceland and Greece ranked highest when adjusted per capita. Most publications (83.1%) were single-country studies. The USA was the central hub of international collaboration, with the highest number of links (n=115) and total link strength. The most frequent collaborations involved the USA, particularly with the UK and China. Countries such as Iceland and Uruguay showed high ICI values, whereas China and Japan had lower international collaboration levels. Network analysis revealed a core-periphery structure dominated by North America and Western Europe.
conclusionsLupus research is expanding but remains concentrated within a limited number of countries. International collaboration is uneven, highlighting the need for more inclusive global research partnerships.
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.