Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42223892›Full record

ArticleUpdates in surgery2026

Global trends in surgical ethics research: a bibliometric analysis.

Özlem Kersu, Selda Mert

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Updates in surgery, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Özlem KersuFaculty of Health Sciences, Nursing Department, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Meşelik Campus, 26040, Odunpazarı, Eskişehir, Turkey. oozkaya@ogu.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3592-2892
Selda MertFaculty of Health Sciences, Nursing Department, Kırşehir Ahi Evran University, Kırşehir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8123-2211

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in surgical technology have expanded diagnostic and treatment options; however, the increasing complexity of surgical procedures has also intensified ethical issues in surgical practice.This study aimed to evaluate the development and trends of publications in the field of surgical ethics and to synthesize the findings obtained.On August 12, 2025, a comprehensive search was conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection using predefined keywords related to "surgical ethics" OR "surgical ethics" OR "operating room ethics" OR "operating room ethics" OR "surgical ethics" OR "surgical ethics" OR "operating room ethics" OR "operating room ethics" were used to conduct a comprehensive search without any time restrictions. A total of 217 publications were included. Bibliometric analysis was performed using the Bibliometrix-Biblioshiny package in R(version 4.2.2). The data were analyzed in terms of publication characteristics, keyword trends, and thematic structures. Studies on surgical ethics had an average publication age of less than 10 years, and a significant increase in publication volume was observed as of 2023. Citation rates accelerated significantly after 2020, reaching an average of 5.9 citations per document. Editorial materials accounted for 22.5% of all publications. The main research topics were bioethics, informed consent, and medical ethics.Surgical ethics is an emerging and growing field of research that has attracted increasing scientific interest in recent years. Despite this growth, the limited number of studies with high-level evidence remains a significant shortcoming. These findings provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of the literature and highlight key areas for future research.

Indexed as

Bibliometric analysisBioethicsEthicsSurgery

Identifiers

PMID42223892

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.