Hepatocellular carcinoma’s 100 most influential manuscripts: A bibliometric analysis

Abstract

Aims: A bibliometric analysis identifies the major publications that influence the clinical management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC). Within this study, the 100 most cited HCC articles are noted and analysed. Methods: The search terminology “Hepatocellular carcinoma” and “HCC” were used to search through the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database. The inclusion criteria consisted of English language full articles. The subject matter, author and institution details, year of publication and journal were recorded for the 100 most cited HCC articles. Citation rate index was calculated by dividing the number of citations by the number of years since publication. Results: The search through the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database identified 39,518 eligible papers. The median (range) citation number was 909 (4419 to 458). The most cited article (produced by Llovet et al) discussed the role of Sorafenib in advanced HCC (4419 citations). Hepatology published the most articles (n=20, 20,533 citations), however the Lancet had the overall highest citation number of 39219, across 9 published articles. The most discussed topic was HCC management (n=31), followed by prognosis (n=18) and aetiology (n=15). Conclusion: This bibliometric analysis has identified the 100 most cited HCC articles. Through integrating new knowledge into clinical practice, this has enabled novel treatment strategies to be utilised for patients with HCC. This study highlights what makes a citable article and may aid in the development for future HCC research themes.

Interoperability Requirements for Blockchain-Enabled Electronic Health Records in Healthcare: A Systematic Review and Open Research Challenges

“…e first author of each article has also been taken into consideration [34,38]. e biasedness of the English language and first author name is the limitations of this study.…”

Social Entrepreneurship: A Bibliometric-Based Research Trend

“…Table 1 presents the number of published studies in these countries, based on economy classifications according to income level, which is: (a) developed economies, (b) economies in transition, and (c) developing economies (United Nations, 2019). The US (93), followed by the UK (38), represents the developed countries.There were (16) studies conducted in countries with economies in transitionanddevelopingcountries, India with (18), South Africa (9)and Malaysia (9), and China (7) were ranked 1 st , 2 nd, and 3 rd respectively. One possible explanation is that India and Malaysia publishuseful journals.…”

Mapping the Scientific Landscape of Diabetes Research in Malaysia (2000–2018): A Systematic Scientometrics Study

“…A useful topic to investigate for future studies would be to include citations from guidelines and policy documents, as these sources are most likely to be a direct measure of a publications’ impact on policies and practices. To correct for the lead time bias, future studies could analyze citation rates of scholarly works, that is the number of citations divided by the number of years since the publication [ 37 ]. However, this approach has its limitation and may result in under-representation of the entire scientific landscape [ 38 ].…”