ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2024
Tissue engineering in otorhinolaryngology: A knowledge-based analysis.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Tissue engineering in otorhinolaryngology: A knowledge-based analysis.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the impact, performance, degree of specialization, and collaboration patterns of the worldwide scientific production on tissue engineering in otorhinolaryngology at the level of countries and institutions. Methods: Two different techniques were used, performance and science mapping analyses, using as samples all the available documents regarding tissue engineering focused on otorhinolaryngology applications. The dataset was retrieved from the Core Collection of the Web of Science database from 1900 to 2020. Social structure was analyzed using science mapping analysis with VOSviewer software. Results: The United States was the main producer, followed by Germany, and Japan. Malaysia and Germany had the highest Relative Specialization Index, indicating their greater relative interest in this area compared to other countries. The social structure analysis showed that the United States and Germany had significant co-authorship relationships with other countries. The University of California System, Kyoto University, and Harvard University were the leading institutions producing literature in this field. These latter two institutions showed the largest number of collaborations, although most of them were with institutions within their own country. There was a lack of connections between different communities of research. Conclusion: The United States is the main country driving progress in this research area, housing the most notable institutions. However, significant collaborations between these research centers are currently lacking. Encouraging greater cooperation among these institutions and their researchers would promote the exchange of knowledge, ultimately facilitating and accelerating advancements in this field.
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.