Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34567249›Full record

ArticleEcancermedicalscience2021

Global cancer research in the era of COVID-19: a bibliometric analysis.

Mieke Van Hemelrijck, Grant Lewison, Louis Fox, Verna Dnk Vanderpuye, Raúl Murillo, Chris M Booth, Karen Canfell, C S Pramesh, Richard Sullivan, Deborah Mukherij

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. What is next for occupational cancer epidemiology?Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2022
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 7 institutions in 7 countries.

Mieke Van HemelrijckKing's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Translational Oncology and Urology Research (TOUR), London SE1 9RT, UK.
Grant LewisonKing's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Institute of Cancer Policy, London SE1 9RT, UK.
Louis FoxKing's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Translational Oncology and Urology Research (TOUR), London SE1 9RT, UK.
Verna Dnk VanderpuyeNational Center for Radiotherapy, Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Korle Bu Teaching Hospital, PO Box KB369, Accra, Ghana.
Raúl MurilloHospital Universitario San Ignacio, Colombia.
Chris M BoothQueens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Karen CanfellThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Australia.
C S PrameshTata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai 400012, India.
Richard SullivanKing's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Institute of Cancer Policy, London SE1 9RT, UK.
Deborah MukherijNaef K. Basile Cancer Institute, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.
King's College London · GBAmerican University of Beirut Medical Center · LBHospital Universitario San Ignacio · COKorle Bu Teaching Hospital · GHQueen's University · CATata Memorial Hospital · INUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with cancer across the world have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic due to increased risk of infection and disruption to cancer diagnosis and treatment. Widening of healthcare disparities is expected as the gap between health systems with and without adequate resources to mitigate the pandemic become more apparent. We undertook a bibliometric analysis of research related to cancer and COVID-19 to understand (1) the type of research that has been conducted (e.g. patients, services and systems) and (2) whether the pandemic has impacted the state of global cancer research as measured by research outputs to date.

methodsAn existing filter for cancer research consisting of title words and the names of specialist cancer journals was used to identify cancer and COVID-19 related articles and reviews in the Web of Science (©Clarivate Analytics) between January 2019 and February 2021.

resultsOne thousand five hundred and forty-five publications were identified. The majority (57%) were reviews, opinion pieces or concerned with modelling impact of delays to diagnosis and treatment. The main research domains focused on managing or estimating COVID-19 risk to cancer patients accounting for 384 papers (25%). High Income countries contributed the largest volume (

conclusionsWe observed a shift in research focus rather than a decline in absolute output. However, there is variation based on national income and collaborations are minimal. There has been a focus on pan-cancer studies rather than cancer site-specific studies. Strengthening global multidisciplinary research partnerships with teams from diverse backgrounds with regard to gender, clinical expertise and resource setting is essential to prevent the widening of cancer inequalities.

Indexed as

cancerCOVID-19global oncologysocio-technical studies

Identifiers

PMID34567249
PMCPMC8426029
OpenAlexW3177572551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.