ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Mapping the research trends and hotspots on solid pulmonary nodules from 2000-2024: insights from bibliometric analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: Due to extensive low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening, the detection rate of solid pulmonary nodules (PNs) is constantly rising. However, existing studies lack a comprehensive understanding of its emerging research trends and interdisciplinary progress, especially in terms of artificial intelligence (AI) integration and molecular characteristics. In this study, we conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to clarify the current research trends and predict future research hotspots in this field, in order to improve diagnostic accuracy, reduce overtreatment, and promote innovation in precise chest oncology. Methods: Relevant publications regarding solid PNs were acquired from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database [2000-2024]. Scientific landscape of solid PNs was illustrated by quantitatively assessing the scientific output and impact of various academic subjects (i.e., authors, institutions, journal, countries/regions) and qualitatively generating collaboration networks using CiteSpace and Bibliometrix. Lastly, burst detection, clustering analysis and thematic map analysis were implemented to depict shifts in the research frontier of solid PNs. Results: Since 2000, a total of 1,413 original articles on pulmonary solid nodules (SNs) have been published. The United States was the leading country in terms of publication volume and centrality in this field. Prof. Kurzrock Razelle from the Medical College of Wisconsin, USA, had the most publications and the highest scientific impact in the field. Clinical Cancer Research published the most manuscripts and had the highest impact in the field. Research institutions from the United States were predominant in the field and several institutions from China were found to have strong influence in the recent years. Current key research foci of solid PNs included tumor size, diagnosis, classification, malignancy, radiomics, segmentectomy, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Moreover, molecular profile analysis, brain metastases (BMs), lymph node (LN) metastasis, solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs) and immunotherapy are the emerging research topics. Conclusions: The in-depth bibliometric analysis outlines the research landscape in the field of solid PNs, identifying current research trends and hot topics that can guide future research directions. AI-based prediction, diagnosis, and minimally invasive treatment are potential avenues for managing solid PNs.
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.