ArticleMedicine2026
Exploration and prospect of core research hotspots in sepsis-induced myocardial injury based on bibliometrics.
Article in Medicine, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSepsis-associated myocardial injury (SICM) is one of the most common and severe complications of sepsis. The present study aimed to analyze research trends, collaborative networks, and knowledge dissemination in SICM over the past decade using bibliometric methods, thereby providing a reference for future research directions.
methodRelevant literature published between 2015 and 2025 was retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) database. A bibliometric cross-sectional analysis was performed using software tools, including VOSviewer and CiteSpace, with corresponding evaluation metrics extracted or calculated. Publications were categorized by country, institution, author, journal, highly cited papers, and keywords; these variables were compared with respect to publication output and academic impact, followed by bibliometric and visual analyses.
resultsOver the past decade (2015-2025), remarkable advances have been achieved in sepsis research related to SICM. A total of 2927 papers were included in this study. China, the United States, and England constituted the primary sources of publications in this field; among the top 20 contributing institutions, 15 were from China, 4 from the United States, and one from Australia, with Yang Yang identified as the core contributing author. Shock ranked first in the number of publications, while Critical Care topped the list in terms of citation frequency. The most frequently used keywords were sepsis, mortality, and septic shock. Analysis of keyword bursts revealed that precision regulation based on molecular mechanisms and the exploration of intervention targets represent the current research hotspots.
conclusionResearch on sepsis-associated SICM is flourishing. The present study clarifies the research hotspots in this field, provides a comprehensive overview of relevant research trends, and offers a reference for potential collaborations and future research directions.
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.