ArticleInternational journal of oral science2021
Research on neck dissection for oral squamous-cell carcinoma: a bibliometric analysis.
Article in International journal of oral science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Noninvasive and Sensitive Biosensor for the Detection of Oral Cancer Prognostic Biomarkers.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025Article
- A bibliometric analysis reveals a dynamic growth in the use of artificial intelligence in oral cancer research over three decades.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- A bibliometric analysis of the development trend of Tuina research: Based on the Web of Science (WOS) platform.Medicine · 2025Article
- Worldwide Research Trends on Lung Cancer and Microbiota: A Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Review
- Application value of dual-sequence MRI based nomogram of radiomics and morphologic features in predicting tumor differentiation degree and lymph node metastasis of Oral squamous cell carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Reply to "Knowledge-map analysis and bladder cancer immunotherapy: Comment".Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Virtual Tumor Mapping: A New Standard for Surgeon-Pathologist Collaboration in Treating Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Cancers · 2024Article
- Functional magnetic resonance imaging of depression: a bibliometrics and meta-analysis.Annals of general psychiatry · 2024Article
- Mapping the evolving trend of research on Class III malocclusion: a bibliometric analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Review
- Bibliometric evaluation of global trends and characteristics of RNA methylation during angiogenesis.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Efficacy of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Assessment of Depth of Invasion in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Analysis of 125 Clinical Cases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A preoperative nomogram model for the prediction of lymph node metastasis in buccal mucosa cancer.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Study of the Relationship between Mucosal Immunity and Commensal Microbiota: A Bibliometric Analysis.Nutrients · 2023Review
- Development and validation of a nomogram to predict occult cervical metastasis in early oral squamous cell carcinoma.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Article
- Research Trends in Molecular Biological Studies on Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Bibliometric Analysis.Oncology reviews · 2023Article
- Oral squamous cell carcinoma - do we always need elective neck dissection? evaluation of clinicopathological factors of greatest prognostic significance: a cross-sectional observational study.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- T-Cell Infiltration and Immune Checkpoint Expression Increase in Oral Cavity Premalignant and Malignant Disorders.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- FAM64A promotes HNSCC tumorigenesis by mediating transcriptional autoregulation of FOXM1.International journal of oral science · 2022Article
- A bibliometric analysis of research on craniomaxillofacial distraction osteogenesis from 2000 to 2021.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neck dissection for oral squamous-cell carcinoma (OSCC) is a clinically controversial issue and has therefore been the subject of abundant research. However, no one has performed a bibliometric study on this topic to date. The aim of this study was to assess the development of research on neck dissection for OSCC in terms of the historical evolution, current hotspots and future directions, particularly including research trends and frontiers from 2010 to 2019. Literature records related to research on neck dissection for OSCC were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). CiteSpace was used as a tool to perform a bibliometric analysis of this topic. The survey included 2 096 papers. "Otorhinolaryngology" was the most popular research area. The most active institutions and countries were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and the USA, respectively. Shah J.P. was the most cited author. Among the six identified "core journals", Head & Neck ranked first. The top three trending keywords were 'invasion', 'upper aerodigestive' and 'negative neck'. 'D'Cruz AK (2015)' was the most cited and the strongest burst reference in the last decade. The study evaluated the effect on survival of elective versus therapeutic neck dissection in patients with lateralized early-stage OSCC. The depth of invasion and the management of N0 OSCC were research frontiers in this field. The present study provides a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of research on neck dissection for OSCC, which will assist investigators in exploring potential research directions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.