Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35160202›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022

Current and Future Perspectives on the COVID-19 Vaccine: A Scientometric Review.

Alireza Noruzi, Behzad Gholampour, Sajad Gholampour, Somayeh Jafari, Razieh Farshid, Agata Stanek, Ali Akbar Saboury

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alireza NoruziDepartment of Knowledge and Information Science, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran 1417935840, Iran.ORCID 0000-0003-0877-1566
Behzad GholampourDepartment of Knowledge and Information Science, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran 1417935840, Iran.ORCID 0000-0003-4418-1117
Sajad GholampourDepartment of Sport Management, Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran 3197937551, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-1687-770X
Somayeh JafariDepartment of Knowledge and Information Science, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran 1417935840, Iran.ORCID 0000-0001-6149-7354
Razieh FarshidDepartment of Knowledge and Information Science, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Kharazmi University, Tehran 3197937551, Iran.ORCID 0000-0001-6399-8267
Agata StanekDepartment of Internal Medicine, Angiology and Physical Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia, Batorego 15 St., 41-902 Bytom, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-6939-9898
Ali Akbar SabouryInstitute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of Tehran, Tehran 1417614335, Iran.ORCID 0000-0003-0604-9465
University of Tehran · IRKharazmi University · IRMedical University of Silesia · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study attempted to draw the present and future perspective of the COVID-19 vaccine by identifying the most important scientists and their scientific contexts, trends of research topics, and relationships between different entities.

methodsTo achieve this purpose, bibliometric and scientometric techniques were used to analyze 6288 scientific documents contributing to COVID-19 vaccines from the beginning of 2019 to 13 December 2021, indexed in the Web of Science.

resultsThe United States (US) had the greatest impact by publishing 2104 documents and receiving 32,958 citations. The US and the UK countries had the highest level of scientific collaborations with 192 collaborative studies. The University of Oxford and the Harvard Medical School were the most active institutions, and the University of Oxford and Emory University were the most influential institutions. Pollard AJ and Lambe T had the most publications and the highest citations and h-index. T Lambe, SC Gilbert, M Voysey, and AJ Pollard from the University of Oxford had the highest number of co-authorships. More than 19% of the research was conducted in the field of immunology.

conclusionsRecognition of the most important actors (countries, institutes, researchers, and channels for the release of COVID-19 vaccine studies), research trends, and fields of study on the COVID-19 vaccine can be useful for researchers, countries, and policy makers in the field of science and health to make decisions and better understand these vaccines.

Indexed as

bibliometric analysisCOVID-19 vaccinationCOVID-19 vaccineresearch topicsresearch trendsscientific collaboration

Identifiers

PMID35160202
PMCPMC8836413
OpenAlexW4212792847

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.