Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39170305›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Research trends and hotspots in biologics for plaque psoriasis: A bibliometric study from 2004 to 2023.

Shan Huang, Xingwu Duan, Yanping Bai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Shan HuangDongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Xingwu DuanDongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Yanping BaiDepartment of Dermatology and Venereal Disease, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective: Biologics have revolutionized the management of plaque psoriasis and are flourishing. We aimed to construct a knowledge structure in this field through bibliometrics, analyze research trends and cutting-edge hotspots to inspire future research directions, and provide valuable references for clinical decisions. Methods: Publications on biologics for plaque psoriasis in the Web of Science database core collection from 2004 to 2023 were searched. Bibliometric analysis and scientific knowledge mapping were performed with R, CiteSpace, and VOSviewer software. Results: 2,672 articles written by 9,474 authors from 67 countries were included in the study. The number of annual publications has steadily increased over the last 20 years. The most prolific countries, institutions, and authors were the United States, Novartis, and Prof. Reick K., respectively. Reference analysis categorized the research base of the field into 10 main clusters. "Efficacy" and "safety" were the most frequent keywords, and cluster analysis categorized the research in this area into four groups. Burst detection captured current hot keywords including interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitors, "drug survival," "discontinuation," "Covid-19," "real-world," and "clinical features." Conclusion: Global publications on biologics research in plaque psoriasis have grown steadily and rapidly over the past two decades. Efficacy and safety are the highest topics of concern for researchers, and IL-17 inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitors, real-world studies, efficacy prediction, and retreatment after biologics failure or discontinuation are current research hotspots.

Indexed as

BibliometricsBiologicsPlaque psoriasisResearch hotspotsVisualization analysis

Identifiers

PMID39170305
PMCPMC11336704

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.