Bibliometric analysis of randomized controlled trials of colorectal cancer over the last decade

Abstract

BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers globally. In China, its prevalence ranks fourth and fifth among females and males, respectively. Presently, treatment of rectal cancer follows a multidisciplinary comprehensive treatment approach involving surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy. With deepening theoretical and molecular research on colorectal cancer, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on colorectal cancer have made significant progress. However, many RCTs have shortfalls. AIM To investigate the RCTs of global colorectal cancer spanning from 2008 to 2018. To provide suggestions for conducting Chinese RCTs of colorectal cancer. METHODS PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched to obtain RCTs of colorectal cancer carried out between January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2018. The bibliometric method was used for statistical analysis of the publication years, countries/regions, authors, institutions, source journals, quoted times, key words, and authors. RESULTS Colorectal cancer RCTs showed an upward trend between 2008 to 2018; the top 10 research institutions in the included literature were from the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries with a high incidence of colorectal cancer. Most of the related research journals are sponsored by European and American countries. The 15 most cited studies involved international multicenter clinical research, having few participants from Chinese research institutions. Network visualization using key words showed that RCTs on colorectal cancer focus on screening, disease-free survival, drug treatment, surgical methods, clinical trials, quality of life, and prognosis. The result of the coauthorship network analysis showed that Chinese researchers are less involved in international exchanges compared to those from leading publication countries. CONCLUSION High-quality RCTs are increasingly favored by leading international journals. However, there is still a large gap in clinical research between China and leading countries. Researchers should implement standardized and accurate clinical trials, strengthen international multicenter cooperation, and emphasize quality control.

Current global research landscape on COVID-19 and depressive disorders: Bibliometric and visualization analysis

“…To date, there is not a bibliometric study assessing depression research and COVID-19 at the global level. In several studies in virology[ 17 - 22 ], more specifically on the COVID-19 outbreak[ 23 - 29 ], bibliometric analysis means evaluating the research output of authors, countries, journals, and institutions[ 30 , 31 ]. Capturing the relevant literature is essential and promotes the comprehension of a particular focus area's characteristics and patterns.…”

Research Productivity in Surgery from Pakistan: A Bibliometric Analysis (2001-2022)

“…29 Similarly, in an analysis, it is observed that, though, there are research papers on breast cancer from Pakistan, with global collaboration, but improvement is warranted. 30 Regarding colorectal cancer, the contribution for the top ten RCTs and top ten institutes are from developed nations 31 . These examples, and many others in literature, show the paucity of high-quality research from Pakistan, indicating the need of a big paradigm shift in research policies at all levels.…”