3.8 Article

Historical diagnostic and therapeutic changes of ischemic stroke based on the highly cited articles

期刊

SCIENCE EDITING
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 156-162

出版社

KOREAN COUNCIL SCIENCE EDITORS
DOI: 10.6087/kcse.211

关键词

Bibliometrics; Cerebral infarction; Ischemic stroke; Stroke

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [NRF-2017R1D1A1B03029672]
  2. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministy of Science and ICT [NRF-2018R1C1B5086320]
  3. Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital Fund [2019-08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Stroke is a global economic burden of health, which means that it is critical to evaluate changes of optimal diagnoses and treatments. The aim of the study reported herein was to identify the most-cited articles in the field of ischemic stroke and assess their characteristics. Methods: We searched all included articles that had been cited more than 100 times using the Cited Reference Search in February 2016 from Web of Science Core Collection. Among a total of 2,651 articles, we excluded articles on basic science and which involved only hemorrhagic strokes and identified the top-100 cited articles on ischemic stroke. Results: The number of citations for the articles analyzed in this study ranged from 5,182 to 580. Most of the articles were published in The Lancet (25%) and Stroke (23%), and originated from the United States of America (n = 44). Most of them were original articles (65%) and dealt with stroke risk factors (32%) and stroke management (30%). A novel study of hyperacute treatment involving recombinant-tissue plasminogen activator was described in the top-ranked article. Conclusion: Reviews on highly cited articles can help physicians identify trends in the diagnosis and treatment of ischemic stroke in the past. This bibliometric analysis can provide a unique perspective on historical developments in this field.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据