ArticleJournal of health, population, and nutrition2023
Bibliometric analysis of residual cardiovascular risk: trends and frontiers.
Article in Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The fat-heart entanglement and the role of 'osteopontin mechanics' in cardiometabolic senescence.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Review
- A century of cardiac rehabilitation research: Bibliometric review of publication history, keyword trends, and citations.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2025Article
- Risk factors for endometrial polyps to transform into endometrial cancer: insights from a bibliometric analysis.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2025Review
- Triglyceride-glucose index as a marker in cardiovascular diseases; a bibliometric study and visual analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
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
backgroundThe presence of residual cardiovascular risk is an important cause of cardiovascular events. Despite the significant advances in our understanding of residual cardiovascular risk, a comprehensive analysis through bibliometrics has not been performed to date. Our objective is to conduct bibliometric studies to analyze and visualize the current research hotspots and trends related to residual cardiovascular risk. This will aid in understanding the future directions of both basic and clinical research in this area.
methodsThe literature was obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection database. The literature search date was September 28, 2022. Bibliometric indicators were analyzed using CiteSpace, VOSviewer, Bibliometrix (an R package), and Microsoft Excel.
resultA total of 1167 papers were included, and the number of publications is increasing rapidly in recent years. The United States and Harvard Medical School are the leading country and institution, respectively, in the study of residual cardiovascular risk. Ridker PM and Boden WE are outstanding investigators in this field. According to our research results, the New England Journal of Medicine is the most influential journal in the field of residual cardiovascular risk, whereas Atherosclerosis boasts the highest number of publications on this topic. Analysis of keywords and landmark literature identified current research hotspots including complications of residual cardiovascular risk, risk factors, and pharmacological prevention strategies.
conclusionIn recent times, global attention toward residual cardiovascular risk has significantly increased. Current research is focused on comprehensive lipid-lowering, residual inflammation risk, and dual-pathway inhibition strategies. Future efforts should emphasize strengthening international communication and cooperation to promote the comprehensive evaluation and management of residual cardiovascular risk.
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.