ArticleJournal of bone oncology2023
How has the field of metastatic breast cancer in bones evolved over the past 22 years?
Article in Journal of bone oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bibliometric analysis of bone metastases from lung cancer research from 2004 to 2023.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although knowledge on metastatic breast cancer in bones (MBCB) has increased rapidly over the past 22 years, a comprehensive and objective bibliometric analysis is still lacking. Materials and methods: We used R, VOSviewer, and Citespace software to conduct a bibliometric analysis of 5,497 papers on MBCB from the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) using author, institution, country/region, citation, and keyword indicators. Results: A general strong sense of scholarly collaboration was noted in the MBCB field at the author, research institution, and country/region levels. We discovered some outstanding authors and highly productive institutions, but with less collaboration with other academic groups. Unbalanced and uncoordinated developments were observed among countries/regions in the field of MBCB research. We also found that by using various indicators and applying different analysis methods to them, we were able to broadly identify primary clinical practices, relevant clinical experiments, and directions for bioinformatics regarding MBCB, changes over the past 22 years, and current challenges in the field. The development of knowledge on MBCB is progressing greatly; however, MBCB is still incurable. Conclusion: This study is the first to use bibliometrics to provide an overall analysis of the scientific output of MBCB studies. Palliative therapies for MBCB are mostly in a mature state. However, research on the molecular mechanisms and immune response to tumors related to the development of treatments to cure MBCB remains relatively immature. Therefore, further research should be undertaken in this area.
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.