ArticleHeliyon2024
Bibliometric analysis and key messages of integrating Chinese and Western Medicine for COVID-19.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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
Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been a global pandemic since it broke out, and integrated Chinese and Western medicine (ICWM) has played an important role in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. We aimed to analyze the published literature on ICWM for COVID-19 at home and abroad, and compare their differences on hotspots and research fronts. Methods: Publications before Oct 31, 2022 were retrieved from the Web of Science core database (WOS), PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform (Wanfang), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), China Biology Medicine disc (CBM), CiteSpace and VOSviewer to summarize the basic characteristics of publications, countries, institutions, keywords, and citations. Results: We included 580 English papers and 1727 Chinese papers in this study. The development trends in China and other countries are relatively asynchronous and show a smooth growth trend for the future. The most productive countries were China, India, and the United States, while the most productive domestic research institution was the Beijing University of Chinese Medicine. The clustering analysis of high-frequency keywords showed that Chinese literature focused on clinical studies of ICWM for COVID-19, such as retrospective studies, clinical features, and traditional Chinese medicine syndrome analysis, while English literature focused on therapeutic mechanism studies and evidence-based medicine studies, such as systematic reviews and meta-analysis, and both of them paid attention to network pharmacological research and Conclusion: The treatment of COVID-19 by ICWM has become a worldwide research hotspot. Although there are differences in the specific contents among countries, the development trend of research types to the mechanism of action, and the development trend of research contents to the recovery period treatment and the prevention of COVID-19 by ICWM are consistent.
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.