ArticleAntonie van Leeuwenhoek2026
Bibliometric analysis of research trends and hotspots on the microbial mediation effects.
Article in Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The microbiome is increasingly recognized as a potential mediator linking environmental exposures and host-related factors to health outcomes. However, comprehensive bibliometric assessments of microbial mediation effects remain scarce. This study analyzed 3506 eligible articles published from 2016 to 2025, retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus. Using CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and the Bibliometrix R package, we examined publication trends, national and institutional contributions, co-citation networks, and keyword dynamics. According to statistics, researchers from 91 countries and 1151 institutions participated in this field, with China and the United States leading in contributions. The Chinese Academy of Sciences was the most prolific institution (49 documents, 2765 citations), while the University of California system received the highest citation count (4285). Co-citation analysis yielded 653 nodes and 771 links (
Indexed as
Identifiers
42804030What 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.