NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectivesThis study aimed to explore the current status and trends of acupuncture for neurodegenerative diseases (NDs) in the last decade and provide new insights for researchers in future studies.MethodsThe publications concerning acupuncture treatment for NDs published between 2014 and 2023 were extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection. We used CiteSpace and VOSviewer to analyze data on numbers of annual publications, countries, institutions, cited journals, cited authors, cited references, keywords, and citation bursts about acupuncture for NDs.ResultsA total of 635 publications were obtained from 2014 to 2023. We identified the most prolific journals, countries, institutions, authors, patterns of authorship, and the main direction of future research in the field of acupuncture for NDs in the last decade. The country, institution, and journal with the most publications are China (389 articles), Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (56 articles), and Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (42 articles), respectively. The high-frequency keywords focused on "Alzheimer's disease," "Parkinson's disease," "acupuncture," "dementia," and "electroacupuncture." The top five keywords in terms of centrality were "cerebral ischemia," "acupuncture stimulation," "fMRI," "apoptosis," and "deep brain stimulation."ConclusionThe results from this bibliometric study provide insight into the research trends in acupuncture therapy for NDs, and the current status and trends of the past decade, which may help researchers confirm the current status, hotspots, and frontier trends in this field.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.