ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2026
Global trends in patient-reported outcomes and quality-of-life research for breast cancer: a 20-year bibliometric study.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo conduct a 20-year bibliometric analysis of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and quality-of-life (QoL) research in breast cancer, with focus on evolving priorities in women-centered care, global equity gaps, and implications for survivorship policy.
methodsA bibliometric analysis of publications from 2005 to 2024 was conducted using Web of Science. Following clear inclusion criteria (English articles focusing on PROs/QoL in breast cancer), we analyzed 1857 publications using CiteSpace and VOSviewer to map co-citation networks, keyword bursts, and collaboration patterns.
resultsA bibliometric analysis of 1,857 publications (2005-2024) revealed exponential growth in PROs and QoL research for breast cancer, with a notable surge after 2012. The United States led in output (30%) and influence, while China ranked second in volume but demonstrated lower citation impact. European nations such as France and Spain exhibited high per‑paper influence. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center was the most productive institution, yet the University of California, San Francisco achieved the highest average citations per paper. Supportive Care in Cancer published the most studies, while the Journal of Clinical Oncology was the most co‑cited. Seminal works-including the BREAST‑Q and EORTC QLQ modules-were the most frequently co‑cited references. Keyword evolution reflected a conceptual shift: early research emphasized "randomized trial" and "adjuvant therapy," whereas recent trends prioritize "mental health" and "immediate breast reconstruction," signaling a broader integration of psychosocial and patient‑centered outcomes.
conclusionsWhile innovations in PRO tools and survivorship science mark clear progress, the field remains constrained by a Western-centric paradigm that perpetuates inequities in addressing the needs of racial minorities, young patients with fertility concerns, and populations in resource-limited settings. Future efforts require inclusive research governance with strengthened LMIC leadership, contextualized priority-setting to bridge cross-cultural validity gaps, and strategic digital health integration to advance equitable patient-centered care beyond survival metrics.
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.