ReviewHeliyon2024
Global research trends in labor analgesia: A bibliometric analysis from 2013 to 2023.
Review in Heliyon, 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.
- Machine Learning-Driven Intrapartum Fever Prediction: A Comprehensive Large Retrospective Cohort Study Integrating Inflammatory and Obstetric Markers.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Advances in Epidural Labor Analgesia for Obese Parturients.Journal of pain research · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In the past decade, thousands of original articles focus on labor analgesia have published. However, little has been published in the literature that includes a bibliometric analysis of labor analgesia. Therefore, this study is designed to analyze the current status of research on labor analgesia over the past ten years and explore potential directions for the future. Methods: We retrieved the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) for labor analgesia articles published from 2013 to 2023 and extracted the data from the literature. To perform the bibliometric analysis, we used CiteSpace (6.2. R5) and VOS viewer (1.6.19) as our primary analysis tools. Results: A total of 2406 articles were included, and the number of publications has increased steadily in the last ten years. The United States was the leading contributor to the area, and Harvard University was the most productive institution. The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology was the most cited and influential journal. The most co-cited reference was "Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour". The labels of the co-citation cluster have identified the characteristics of 5major clusters, such as "postpartum depression", "programmed intermittent epidural bolus", "childbirth experience" "intrapartum maternal fever" and "dural puncture", which play important roles in this field. Keywords co-occurrence and keywords burst detection showed that "vaginal birth", "postpartum depression", "maternal fever", "inflammation", "systematic review", "guidelines", "decreased risk" and "scale" were the most recent and most prominent topics of labor analgesia. Discussion: This study provided a global review of labor analgesia using bibliometric and visual techniques to provide an intuitive understanding of this topic and identify hotspots and research trends. Notably, intrapartum fever and postpartum depression have emerged as hotpots and trends in labor analgesia research, reflecting the current research landscape.
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.