Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40668318›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2025

Global Research Trends and Collaborative Networks in Cellular Therapy for Crohn's Disease: A Systematic Review and Bibliographic Analysis.

Tunç Akkoç

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Tunç AkkoçDepartment of Immunology, Marmara University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Türkiye. tuncakkoc@marmara.edu.tr.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9179-2805

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCrohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the gastrointestinal system characterized by periods of remission and relapse. This study aims to provide a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of CD cellular therapy research over the past 30 years.

methodsData was accessed and downloaded from the Web of Science (WoS) database on June 18, 2024, using specific search terms related to CDs and cellular therapy, covering the years 1992-2023. The search was limited to articles and review articles in English. The data was analyzed using R Studio Bibliometric to evaluate metrics such as global and local citations, source journals, and fractionalized author contributions.

resultsThe analysis identified 559 documents from 258 sources, with an annual growth rate of 13.45%. The dataset included 309 original research articles and 234 review articles, contributed by 3,181 authors. A significant publication increase was observed from 2009 onward, peaking in 2019. The mean total citations per year showed notable fluctuations, with peaks in 2000 and 2007. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Sun Yat-Sen University, and Mayo Clinic were prominent institutions contributing to the research. The USA led publication output and citations, followed by Spain, China, Italy, and Canada.

conclusionThe management of CD has evolved significantly with advancements in cellular therapy and therapeutic strategies. Despite the growth in research and available treatment options, there remains a lack of broad consensus in clinical practice. This bibliometric analysis highlights the progress in cellular therapy for CD.

Indexed as

BibliometricsBiomedical ResearchCell- and Tissue-Based TherapyCrohn DiseaseHumansBibliometricsCell- and tissue-based therapyCrohn’s diseaseSystematic review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.