ReviewDigital health
Knowledge mapping of online healthcare: An interdisciplinary visual analysis using VOSviewer and CiteSpace.
Review in Digital health. 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.
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
Background: Online healthcare has been regarded as a permanent component and complementation in routine worldwide healthcare. Although there have been large-scale related studies in this field, studies are scattered across disciplines. Numerous publications are needed to systematically and comprehensively identify the status quo, development, and future hotspots in this field. Methods: Publications on online healthcare were screened from the WoS database. By using VOSviewer and CiteSpace, this study analyzed 4636 articles in this field with 60,306 associated references. First, countries/regions distributions, institutions distributions, influential journals, and productive authors were obtained. Then, co-citation analysis, co-occurrence analysis, timeline analysis, and burst detection were further conducted to sketch the panorama of online healthcare. Results: There were 147 countries/regions participated in and contributed to this field in total. Accounting for over half of the total number of publications, the USA, England, Australia, China, and Canada played significant roles in this area. Among the 24,362 authors, Guo XT was the most influential author. The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health was the journal with the most publications and citations. Studies in this field have shifted from basic research to applied practice research. COVID-19, mental health, healthcare, and healthcare workers were the most common keywords, indicating that studies on the impact of online healthcare on healthcare workers, online healthcare service for COVID-19, and mental health will be promising areas in the future. Conclusions: Research on online healthcare is booming, while worldwide cooperation is still regionalized. Cross-regional cooperation among institutions and scholars is needed to enhance in the future. Online healthcare services for specific health fields and specific groups are the current and developing topics 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.