ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
The 100 most cited articles on lung cancer screening: a bibliometric analysis.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The 100 top-cited studies in systemic lupus erythematosus: A bibliometric analysis.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Review
- The top 100 most cited articles on triple-negative breast cancer: a bibliometric analysis.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2023Review
- Bibliometric analysis of the use of artificial intelligence in COVID-19 based on scientific studies.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Bibliometric analysis of global research trends on small-cell lung cancer (2012-2021).Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Knowledge mapping visualization of the pulmonary ground-glass opacity published in the web of science.Frontiers in oncology · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of citations of an article reflects its impact on the scientific community. The aim of this study was to identify and characterize the 100 most cited articles on lung cancer screening.
methodsThe 100 most cited articles on lung cancer screening published in all scientific journals were identified using the Web of Science database. Relevant data, including the number of citations, publication year, publishing journal and impact factor (IF), authorship and country of origin, article type and study design, screening modality, and main topic, were collected and analyzed.
resultsThe 100 most cited articles were all English and published between 1973 and 2017, with 81 published after 2000. The mean number of citations was 292.90 (range 100-3,910). Sixty articles originated from the United States. These articles were published in 32 journals; there was a statistically significant positive correlation between journal IF and the number of citations (r=0.238, P=0.018). Seventy-nine articles were original research of which 37.9% were about results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The most common screening modalities in these articles were low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) (n=78), followed by chest X-ray radiography (CXR) and sputum cytology (n=11). The most common topic in these articles was screening test effectiveness.
conclusionsOur study presents a detailed list and analysis of the 100 most cited articles published about lung cancer screening which provides insight into the historical developments and key contributions in this field.
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.