SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A bibliometric analysis of rapid-eye-movement sleep behavior disorder.

Front Neurol · 2026-02-13

DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2026.1541715PMID: 41767014

Open accessSystematic Review; systematic-review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Rapid-eye-movement sleep behavior disorder(RBD) is a parasomnia characterized by the loss of normal muscle atonia during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, leading individuals to physically act out vivid, often intense or violent dreams, which may result in self-injury or harm to others. In recent years, RBD has become a prominent research focus. The bibliometrics can clearly and intuitively display the research profile, relationships, and clustering within the field. This study examines the development of RBD research using bibliometric analysis. As of 18 January 2026, articles on RBD in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) were collected. CiteSpace is utilized to analyze and visualize the attributes of the articles, including number of publications, institution, journals, authors, keywords, from the 4,229 publications obtained. The leading institution in this field was McGill University, and the most cited journal was NEUROLOGY. The most common keywords were "Parkinson's disease" and "rem sleep behavior disorder." The study conducted a bibliometric analysis of over 37 years of RBD research, identifying the authors, institutions, keywords, journals, and publications involved in this field. The findings provide a comprehensive overview of RBD research.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.