Bibliometric Analysis of 50 Most Cited Articles Comparing Lobectomy with Sublobar Resection

Abstract

Background Recent years have seen an increase in the number of studies of the sublobar resection approach in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) surgery. The purpose of this bibliometric analysis is to assess the significance and impact of articles comparing sublobar resection and lobectomy in NSCLC surgery. Material and Methods The Web of Science database was searched to identify studies comparing sublobar resection and lobectomy in NSCLC surgery published between 2005 and 2020 (accessed: September 11, 2020). The 50 most cited articles were analyzed by years, countries, authors, authors' affiliations, journals, journals' addresses, and impact factors. Results The bibliometric analysis revealed that the most cited article had 443 citations, while the total number of citations of all articles was 2,820. The mean number of citations, in turn, was 56.4 ± 75.62 (1–443) times. The highest number of publications over the past 15 years was in 2016, with eight articles. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery (n = 10; 20%) had the highest number of publications on the list. The articles included in the present study were mostly (n = 35, 70%) published in U.S. journals. While multiple subject matters and analyses were presented by many studies, survival was the topic of greatest interest, with 37 (74%) studies. Conclusion This study revealed that interest in studies comparing sublobar resection with lobectomy has increased in recent years. It also presents both quantitative and qualitative analyses of the most cited articles in the literature on this topic. Therefore, it can serve as a guide for researchers.

Bibliometric analysis of the top 100 highly cited articles on sublobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer

“…We have constructed this bibliometric analysis specifically for sublobectomy, trying to sort out the current status of existing sublobectomy research by summarizing the most 100 cited articles on sublobectomy and providing a practical reference for future sublobectomy research. While there have been recent bibliometric studies in related fields [ 13 ], our research offers a fresh and valuable contribution to the literature. Our study's significance stems from its comprehensive coverage of a vast array of publications and its up-to-date analysis, which reflects the latest trends in the field.…”