ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Publication trends and hotspots for cervical cancer screening biomarker: a bibliometric analysis.
Article in Discover oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Evidence architecture of glaucoma-related biomaterials reveals an uneven transition toward smart materials, additive manufacturing, and functional tissue engineering.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Vaginal Microecological Imbalance, Human Papillomavirus Infection, and Cervical Carcinogenesis: Mechanisms and Clinical Implications.International journal of general medicine · 2026Review
- Global research dynamics in metabolic biomarkers and cancer: a bibliometric study from 2015 to 2025.Discover oncology · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe global disease burden of cervical cancer has remained significant throughout history. It is essential to discover sensitive and specific biomarkers for cervical cancer screening to enhance its quality and efficiency. This study aimed to delineate the publication trends and hotspots for cervical cancer screening biomarker through a bibliometric analysis. Therefore, researchers could acquire a comprehensive understanding of this area.
methodsProfessional search strategies were employed to collect literatures, with the central keywords being cervical cancer screening biomarker. Publications were retrieved from CBM/CNKI/Wanfang databases in Chinese and WoSCC/Pubmed databases in English. After being reviewed by two researchers, the publication dataset was analyzed in terms of sources, countries, authors, journals, citations and keywords using Citespace and bibliometrix package in the R environment.
results547 publications of Chinese origin and 1068 of English origin were picked out. China, the USA and the Netherlands were the most contributing countries. Professor Meijer was the most outstanding author. There is a need to publish articles on our targeted topic in journals with greater academic influence. Current published literatures predominately focused on "p16(ink4a) protein", "DNA methylation" and "human papillomavirus". It has been popular in recent years to identify hub genes as candidate biomarkers through bioinformatics analysis.
conclusionsIt is a challenge to discover a novel and convenient biomarker to simplify the cervical cancer screening process. Global collaboration and clinical trials in high-incidence countries may contribute to the advancement of biomarker research. HPV testing, p16(ink4a) protein and DNA methylation used to be research hotspots, and they are now applied in clinical practice. Cervico-vaginal microbiota and bioinformatics analysis are the new keywords that have emerged recently.
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.