Knowledge domain and emerging trends in chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome from 1970 to 2020: a scientometric analysis based on VOSviewer and CiteSpace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a common urological disease, and research on CP/CPPS has increased over the past 50 years. However, few studies have statistically analyzed these publications. In this work, we conducted the knowledge domain and highlighted current research hotspots and emerging trends in CP/CPPS from 1970 to 2020 based on VOSviewer and CiteSpace. METHODS: Relevant original articles were obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) database between 1970 and 2020. VOSviewer and CiteSpace software were used to perform the analysis and visualization of scientific productivity and emerging trends. RESULTS: Our results show that the articles related to CP/CPPS have dramatically increased every year from 1 publication in 1970 to 111 publications in 2020. The USA dominated the field in all countries, and Queen's University (Canada) has more extensive cooperating relationships with other institutions. J. Curtis Nickel may have a significant influence on CP/CPPS research with more publications and cocitations. The Journal of Urology is the foremost productive journal and has the most citations of all the journals. A total of 11 major clusters were explored based on the reference cocitation analysis (RCA). Definition, incidence rate or clinical characteristics, etiology or pathogenesis, epidemiological studies (cross-sectional study and cohort study), clinical studies (inflammation, pain, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), α-blockers, antibiotic) and relationships with other diseases [benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), prostate cancer, sexual dysfunction] are the knowledge bases for CP/CPPS research. The treatment mode also changed gradually from anti-inflammatory therapy to symptom improvement, and NIH-CPSI was taken as the evaluation criterion. CONCLUSIONS: This scientometric study comprehensively reviewed publications related to CP/CPPS during the past 50 years using quantitative and qualitative methods, and the information provides some references for scholars to conduct further research on CP/CPPS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.079 | 0.070 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".