SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Bibliometric analysis of biologic treatments for chronic rhinosinusitis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) significantly impacts patients' quality of life. The use of biologic therapies in CRS management has gained traction in clinical practice. However, no bibliometric analysis has been conducted in this area thus far. This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the knowledge framework and research trends regarding biologic treatments for CRS. Methods: A bibliometric analysis was performed on 888 publications related to biologic treatments for CRS, published between 2011 and 2024. Literature was retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS), and data visualization and trend analysis were conducted using VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and Bibliometrix software tools. Results: Research on biologic therapies for CRS peaked in the past 6 years. Key contributors include Claus Bachert, the United States, and the University of Ghent. The most cited article is "Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52): results from two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase 3 trials." The five most explosive keywords are: expression (5.03), placebo-controlled trial (3.68), anti-IgE (3.35), anti-IgE antibody (3.22), and phenotypes (4.55). Current research on biologic treatments for CRS predominantly focuses on clinical applications. Conclusion: This study offers a bibliometric visualization of the literature on biologic treatments for CRS, highlighting key developments and emerging research trends in the field. It provides valuable references for scholars and outlines future research directions to further advance the field.
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.