SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
Neoadjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer from 2015 to 2024: a visual analysis and bibliometric analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and prevalence of colorectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of global data.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Research hotspots and trends in therapeutic drug monitoring of anticancer drugs: a 1990-2024 bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Targeting β-Adrenergic Signaling in Colorectal Cancer: Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Potential of β-Blockers.Cancers · 2026Review
- Circulating tumor DNA dynamics predict pathological response and guide therapy personalization in the neoadjuvant setting.Discover oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) imposes a substantial burden on global health., but research trends and hotspots in this field are still not clear. The purpose of this research is to create a visual knowledge map based on bibliometric analysis, identify research hotspots and predict future research trends. Method: Utilizing the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) as data source and integrating the visualization capabilities of the Bibliometrix R software package, CiteSpace, and VOSviewer, analyze the authors, research institutions, countries, cited documents, publishing journals, abstracts, and keyword information of literature pertaining to neoadjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer spanning from January 2015 to December 2024. Result: The analysis included 1,587 articles from 1,464 institutions, 385 journals, and 61 countries or regions. China has the largest number of publications (449) and the largest number of citations (5,035). The United States occupies the leading position with an average of 21.6. "Annals of Surgical Oncology" is the most published journal with 51 articles, and "Journal of Clinical Oncology" is the journal with the most references (4,465 references). Highly cited references focus on clinical trials and guidelines for neoadjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer. In recent years, the most important keywords in the research on colorectal cancer and neoadjuvant therapy have been "artificial intelligence", "total neoadjuvant therapy" and "immunotherapy". Conclusion: This article provided a review of the research on neoadjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer, can provide reference for subsequent research on neoadjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer. The results offered valuable insights and data that informed the direction of future advancements.
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.