MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411042684 · doi:10.26689/jcnr.v9i5.10702

A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends in Neck Pain from 2000 to 2025

2025· article· en· W4411042684 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shiliang Xi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Nursing Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeck painBibliometricsRegional scienceMedicineComputer scienceGeographyLibrary scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This paper conducts a bibliometric analysis of the literature on neck pain research from 2000 to 2025, aiming to comprehensively and systematically understand the research landscape, hotspots, and frontier trends in this field, providing a reference for future research directions. Methods: Data were sourced from the Web of Science Core Collection, with the search term TI = “neck pain,” covering the time span from 2000 to 2025, resulting in 2746 articles. Software such as CiteSpace V6.3.R1 and VOSviewer 1.6.20 was used to analyze publication volume, countries, authors, institutions, keywords, and co-citation networks. Results: The number of publications in neck pain research has been increasing year by year, indicating a rising level of research activity. Authors like Falla, D, Jull, G, and institutions such as Univ Queensland and Univ Toronto have significant influence in this field. Co-occurrence analysis of keywords shows that “neck pain,” “low back pain,” and “disability index” are high-frequency keywords, reflecting research hotspots such as the characteristics and treatment of neck pain and its interrelation with pain in other regions. Timeline analysis and keyword emergence analysis reveal the frontiers and development trends in this field, such as the growing attention on emerging therapeutic methods like “exercise therapy” and “dry needling,” while keywords like “intensity,” “individuals,” and “quality” indicate an increasing emphasis on personalization, precision, and quality control in the treatment process. Conclusion: The field of neck pain research is continuously expanding and deepening. Future research should further investigate the pathogenesis of neck pain, its associations with other conditions, the refinement of assessment methods, and the development of innovative rehabilitation strategies. Emphasis should also be placed on interdisciplinary collaboration to provide more robust theoretical foundations and practical guidance for the clinical treatment and rehabilitation management of neck pain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.1780.229
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.176
GPT teacher head0.592
Teacher spread0.416 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical and Nursing ResearchSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207