ReviewPathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends and Prospective Directions of Lung Microbiome.
Review in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Insights into human respiratory microbiome under dysbiosis and its analysis tool.Frontiers in microbiomes · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The lung microbiome has emerged as a pivotal area of research in human health. Despite the increasing number of publications, there is a lack of research that comprehensively and objectively presents the current status of lung microbiome-related studies. Thus, this study aims to address this gap by examining over two decades of publications through bibliometric analysis. The original bibliographic data of this study were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection, focusing on publications from 2003 to 2023. The analysis included the data extraction and examination of authors, affiliations, countries, institutions, abstracts, keywords, references, publication dates, journals, citations, H-indexes, and journal impact factors. A total of 845 publications were identified, showing an increasing trend in both publications and citations over the years, particularly in the last decade. The analysis highlighted the most productive authors, institutions, and countries/regions, and identified potential partners for interested researchers. Co-citation analysis revealed that lung microbiome- and infectious/pulmonary disease-related studies are at the forefront of the field. The hotspots and frontiers of the lung microbiome field have progressed from basic composition to exploring specific mechanisms and the clinical value of diseases. In conclusion, this study provides a comprehensive overview of the current research status and trends in the field of the lung microbiome over the past two decades and highlights the areas that need more attention and research efforts. It offers valuable insights for researchers and institutions and identifies key hotspots and frontiers, which can serve as references for related researchers and future research.
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.