SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Multi-database bibliometric analysis and cross-database comparison of NOSES research in colorectal cancer: integrated evidence from WoSCC and PubMed.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As an innovative surgical approach in the treatment of colorectal cancer, Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery (NOSES) offers several advantages. To ensure robust scientific comparison through multi-database inquiry, this study conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis using dual independent databases to explore research hotspots and future trends in colorectal cancer NOSES. Methods: This study employed a cross-database comparison strategy using two independent sources: 432 documents from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) and 411 documents from PubMed, covering the period from January 2010 to June 2025. The WoSCC dataset served as the primary analysis cohort to establish research trends, while the PubMed database functioned as an independent validation cohort to confirm and cross-verify key findings. Bibliometric analyses of authors, institutions, countries, publishing journals, abstracts, keywords, and cited documents were performed using the Bibliometrix R package, CiteSpace, and VOSviewer. Comparative analyses between the two databases were conducted to ensure robustness and reliability of identified research patterns. Results: The analysis included articles from 576 institutions, 112 journals, and 49 countries. China led global publications with 273 articles, while the United Kingdom achieved the highest citation count (2,306). Surgical Endoscopy emerged as the most prolific journal (46 papers) and the most cited (1,824 citations). Highly cited works predominantly focused on clinical trials and innovative surgical techniques in NOSES for colorectal cancer. Cross-database comparison confirmed that recent key research themes include "orifice specimen extraction," "chemoradiotherapy," and "pathological outcomes," reflecting the field's evolving priorities toward minimally invasive approaches and multidisciplinary integration. Conclusion: This study reviewed the research on NOSES for colorectal cancer, providing a reference for subsequent studies. It mapped the research landscape in this field, summarized the current state of research, and offered data support and insights for future development.
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.