ArticleMedicine2022
Global status and trends in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction over the period 2009-2020: A bibliometric analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bibliometric analysis of research trends in relationship between sarcopenia and surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) comprises about 50% of the cases of heart failure (HF), but so far there is no effective treatment strategy. This study used bibliometric methods to analyze the scientific literature on HFpEF in 2009 to 2020, and evaluate the global scientific output of HFpEF research, in order to explore the research status and trends in this field.
methodsDocuments about the HFpEF research published in 2009 to 2020 were retrieved from Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) in Web of Science. This study used bibliometrix R-package, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace to conduct the bibliometric analysis.
resultsA total of 1971 documents (1508 articles and 283 reviews) were retrieved to construct the local HFpEF literature collection for analysis. The number of annual documents had increased year by year in general, from 24 to 353. Relevant documents were mainly written in English, and mostly focused on the field of "Cardiovascular System Cardiology." USA ranked first in the relevant countries/regions with most documents, and the leading affiliation was Mayo Clin. Shah SJ was the most productive author, while Borlaug BA ranked highest among the local cited authors and G-index. Circulation was the most local cited source, while Eur J Heart Fail published the most documents and was rated as the top source in terms of G-index. "Paulus WJ, 2013, J Am Coll Cardiol" was the top local cited document within the local HFpEF literature collection, while "Owan TE, 2006, New Engl J Med" outside the local HFpEF literature collection was the most local cited reference. The keywords such as "mortality," "dysfunction," "diagnosis," "outcomes," and "diastolic dysfunction" were most frequent, while "hemodynamics," "comorbidity," "myocardial infarction," "inflammation," and "phenotype" indicated research frontiers or emerging trends. Furthermore, this study also found some deeper bibliometric relationships through bibliographic networks.
conclusionsDue to the multi-dimensional bibliometric analysis, this study shows a wide view of scientific productivity related to HFpEF, and provides valuable guidance for researchers interested in HFpEF, assisting them in understanding the research status, identifying potential collaborators, discovering research hotspots and frontiers, and conducting more in-depth research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.