The quality of life of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The quality of life (QOL) of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is garnering increasing attention. However, faced with thousands of relevant clinical literature, it is becoming increasingly difficult for researchers and institutions to identify impactful research. Bibliometrics can help researchers quickly and methodically analyze the impact and hot trends of clinical research, strengthen teamwork, and solve related challenges. Therefore, we used bibliometrics to analyze and visualize data on the QOL of patients with COPD over the past 31 years to understand the key authors, research areas, and future trends. Methods: We searched the Web of Science Core Collection for literature published since the establishment of the database. The main subject terms used were "chronic obstructive pulmonary disease", "quality of life" and their different combinations. Articles were selected and exported in plain text format along with citation information. Bibliometric analysis and data visualization were performed using the R package "bibliometrix" and by incorporating statistical indicators such as the number of publications, citations and outputs of core authors, author collaborations, major journals, major research countries and collaborations, and key research themes. Results: emerged as the most frequently cited journals within this domain. Key authors contributing to this field include Wedzicha JA, Jones PW, Singh D, Holland AE, and Wouters EFM. The United States and the United Kingdom exhibited a high volume of publications, high citation rates, and relatively intense international collaboration in related areas, followed by China, Spain, Canada, and Australia in these metrics. Notably, prominent topics within this field included emphysema, pulmonary rehabilitation, dyspnea, acute exacerbation, living status, and mortality, among others. Future research in this field will focus on microorganisms, particulate matter, family rehabilitation, and Tai Chi. Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis highlights the growing importance of QOL research in the field of COPD, which can inform clinicians, researchers, and policymakers to prioritize areas for future investigation in order to develop comprehensive, patient-centered strategies. At the same time, it is suggested that researchers should pay more attention to the core authors, strengthen international collaboration and team exchanges, actively explore characteristic clinical featured treatment measures such as Tai Chi and family rehabilitation, carry out clinical research on the integration of traditional Chinese and Western medicine and self-management, focus more on the QOL, mental health and economic and social burden of patients, and ultimately enhance the well-being of individuals with chronic respiratory diseases.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.053 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".