ReviewMedicine2026
Diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis: A bibliometric review from 2008 to 2024.
Review in 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe pathogenesis and pathological progression of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) remain unclear. Owing to the absence of a gold standard for diagnosing AS, diagnostic delays are frequently encountered in clinical practice, exacerbating the disease burden. In the past 16 years, several diagnostic studies on AS have been published. This study aimed to summarize the developmental trends and frontier hotspots in AS diagnosis through a bibliometric review.
methodsData were extracted from English publications on AS diagnosis from the Web of Science Core Collection (January 1, 2008-October 21, 2024). CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and the Biblioshiny R package were used to analyze the overview of the publication output, countries/regions, institutions, authors, sources, references, and keywords.
resultsA total of 1205 articles from 396 journals across 65 countries were included. The highest annual output occurred in 2021 (n = 111, 9.21%), whereas 2015 had the highest average number of citations (n = 5.1). Clinical Rheumatology (n = 76, 6.31%) was the most influential journal. China (n = 244, 20.25%), Berlin Institute of Health (n = 116, 9.63%), and Sieper J (n = 28, 2.32%) ranked first in terms of country, institution, and author productivity, respectively. The top 3 reference clusters were "diagnostic criteria," "therapeutics," and "recommendations." Burst detection identified 4 emerging post-2021 keywords: "children," "cells," "spondyloarthritis," and "expression."
conclusionAS diagnosis research has evolved through a growth phase (2008-2021), followed by a transitional or reorientation phase (2022-2024). Magnetic resonance imaging, Mendelian randomization, and biomarkers are current hotspots; Mendelian randomization serves as an etiological adjunct with the potential to inform biomarker discovery, though its findings do not yet constitute diagnostic tools. The apparent slowdown in recent years largely reflects evolving terminology (AS vs radiographic axial spondyloarthritis) and bibliometric time-lag bias rather than true intellectual stagnation, alongside fragmented pathophysiological insights and a lack of specific clinical features.
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.