The Trend of Drug Therapy on Uveitic Macular Edema: A Bibliometric Analysis of the 100 Most Cited Articles.
bibliometric analysis
citations
drug treatment
macular edema
uveitis
Journal
Frontiers in medicine
ISSN: 2296-858X
Titre abrégé: Front Med (Lausanne)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101648047
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
02
11
2021
accepted:
31
01
2022
entrez:
14
3
2022
pubmed:
15
3
2022
medline:
15
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Macular edema is the most common cause of impaired vision due to uveitis. Although various medications are available, not all uveitis patients with macular edema are satisfied with the treatment results. Therefore, solving this gap becomes the utmost concern worldwide. This study attempted to use bibliometric analysis to compare the valuable information in the top 100 highly cited studies in the field of drug therapy for uveitic macular edema (UME) and then determine the research hot spots and trends in this field. In this study, the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) of Web of Science (WOS) was used to collect the top 100 most cited studies on UME and analyze the literature from different countries/regions, institutions, and journals. The visualization knowledge maps is generated by VOSviewer and Citespace software. The top 100 highly cited studies are from 34 countries/regions. The United States has the largest number of publications, followed by the England, Spain and Germany. The top three institutions publishing highly cited literature are all from the England: University of London, University College London, and Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. This study concludes that bibliometric analysis can intuitively and quickly obtain the frontiers and hot spots of research in the field of UME drug therapy. Corticosteroid administration, biological agents, and clinical trials are considered the potential focus of future research.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Macular edema is the most common cause of impaired vision due to uveitis. Although various medications are available, not all uveitis patients with macular edema are satisfied with the treatment results. Therefore, solving this gap becomes the utmost concern worldwide. This study attempted to use bibliometric analysis to compare the valuable information in the top 100 highly cited studies in the field of drug therapy for uveitic macular edema (UME) and then determine the research hot spots and trends in this field.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
In this study, the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) of Web of Science (WOS) was used to collect the top 100 most cited studies on UME and analyze the literature from different countries/regions, institutions, and journals. The visualization knowledge maps is generated by VOSviewer and Citespace software.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The top 100 highly cited studies are from 34 countries/regions. The United States has the largest number of publications, followed by the England, Spain and Germany. The top three institutions publishing highly cited literature are all from the England: University of London, University College London, and Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
This study concludes that bibliometric analysis can intuitively and quickly obtain the frontiers and hot spots of research in the field of UME drug therapy. Corticosteroid administration, biological agents, and clinical trials are considered the potential focus of future research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35280901
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.807319
pmc: PMC8904366
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
807319Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Chen, Kong and Feng.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2017 Apr;25(2):215-220
pubmed: 26731514
Clin Rheumatol. 2020 Feb;39(2):327-337
pubmed: 31823144
Front Pharmacol. 2021 Jan 20;11:626502
pubmed: 33551822
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018 Aug 1;110(8):815-824
pubmed: 29982543
Scientometrics. 2010 Aug;84(2):523-538
pubmed: 20585380
J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect. 2019 Jan 29;9(1):3
pubmed: 30694420
Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2008 Sep-Oct;52(5):374-379
pubmed: 18991038
Ophthalmology. 2012 Aug;119(8):1575-81
pubmed: 22525047
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Apr 6;101 Suppl 1:5303-10
pubmed: 14724295
Arch Ophthalmol. 2011 May;129(5):545-53
pubmed: 21220619
Ophthalmology. 2019 Feb;126(2):283-295
pubmed: 30269924
Ophthalmology. 2006 Aug;113(8):1446-9
pubmed: 16877081
Ophthalmology. 2014 Dec;121(12):2387-92
pubmed: 25178807
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 May 02;52(6):2917-23
pubmed: 21273539
Retina. 2015 Aug;35(8):1640-6
pubmed: 25741813
Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2008 Jul-Aug;16(4):155-60
pubmed: 18716950
Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2012 Apr;20(2):86-90
pubmed: 22409560
J Clin Med. 2021 Sep 14;10(18):
pubmed: 34575244
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014 Apr;252(4):633-40
pubmed: 24366669
Ophthalmology. 2021 May;128(5):719-728
pubmed: 32918964
Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2018;26(7):987-990
pubmed: 30339504
Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2020 Nov 16;28(8):1239-1250
pubmed: 32058830
Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2019;27(2):169-180
pubmed: 30821631
Pharmacotherapy. 2015 Jun;35(6):551-9
pubmed: 25940769
Am J Ophthalmol. 1991 Aug 15;112(2):138-46
pubmed: 1867297
Front Oncol. 2021 Feb 12;10:627891
pubmed: 33643922
Ophthalmology. 2004 May;111(5):946-53
pubmed: 15121373
Front Immunol. 2021 Aug 18;12:731933
pubmed: 34484243
Am J Ophthalmol. 2019 Apr;200:85-94
pubmed: 30660771
Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2020;28(2):322-328
pubmed: 31107604
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2019 May;30(3):138-150
pubmed: 30844945
Clin Ophthalmol. 2009;3:41-7
pubmed: 19668543