ArticleMedicine2026
Bibliometric analysis of research progress in pediatric intussusception from the Web of Science Core Collection over the past 15 years.
Article in Medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to systematically investigate the knowledge structure, historical trends, and emerging research frontiers in the domain of pediatric intussusception through bibliometric and visualization methods.
methodsA comprehensive search was performed in the Web of Science Core Collection to retrieve articles published from 2010 to 2024. VOSviewer and CiteSpace were utilized for bibliometric analysis, including co-occurrence networks, keyword clustering, and burst term detection. Additionally, the PubMed database was utilized to supplement and analyze clinical research trends in the field of intussusception.
resultsAfter rigorous screening, a total of 993 relevant articles were included, contributed by 1580 institutions and 3702 authors (comprising both first and corresponding authors). The institution with the highest publication output was the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), while the most prolific author was Professor Umesh D. Parashar, also from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The United States was the leading country in terms of publication volume, followed by China. These studies were published across 288 journals, with the Journal of Pediatric Surgery being the most prolific. Keyword clustering revealed 8 primary research themes: rotavirus vaccine, appendicitis, hydrostatic reduction, double-blind, Henoch-Schönlein purpura, epidemiology, small bowel intussusception, and Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Clinical research on intussusception is predominantly composed of retrospective cohort studies (33.1%), followed by randomized controlled trials (26.3%). Key research focuses include intussusception treatment, management, diagnosis, and safety evaluation of rotavirus vaccines.
conclusionThis study provides a comprehensive overview of pediatric intussusception research over the past 15 years, highlighting a shift in focus from basic clinical observations to evidence-based practices and precision medicine. Future research should prioritize interdisciplinary collaboration, the development of personalized treatment strategies, and the integration of basic and clinical research.
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.