ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
A 20-year bibliometric analysis on the development trends and hotspots of pectus excavatum research: 2005-2025.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite significant advances in surgical techniques for pectus excavatum (PE), the evolution of research priorities and clinical foci in this field remains poorly defined. This study aims to map the thematic evolution of PE research using bibliometric methods, thereby guiding future clinical research directions. Methods: Publications on PE from 2005 to 2025 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). Bibliometric analyses, including co-authorship, co-citation, keyword co-occurrence, burst detection, and trend analyses, were conducted to evaluate research productivity, collaboration networks, and thematic shifts. Data visualization was conducted using CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Scimago Graphica. Results: A total of 855 articles from 48 countries were included, demonstrating a steady increase in research output over the two decades. The United States, China, and South Korea were the primary contributors. The Catholic University of Korea, Children's Hospital of The King's Daughters, and Mayo Clinic were the leading institutions. Top authors by publication count included Hyung Joo Park, Robert E. Kelly Jr., and Michael J. Goretsky. Donald Nuss was the most highly cited author. The Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis delineates the developmental trajectory of PE research from 2005 to 2025, identifies emerging research hotspots, and highlights shifts in clinical foci. These findings may help guide the design of future clinical studies and foster collaborative efforts in 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.