SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
The evolving landscape of gene editing therapies for human genetic diseases: a twenty-year bibliometric analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Despite the transformative potential of gene editing technologies, a systematic mapping of their translational trajectory from bench to bedside remains scarce. This bibliometric analysis aims to chart the bench-to-bedside evolution, identify leading disease targets and therapeutic strategies, and uncover emerging clinical trends and challenges. Methods: We analyzed 1,571 peer-reviewed articles and reviews explicitly addressing gene editing therapies for human genetic diseases, published between 2005 and 2025 and retrieved from Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus. Science mapping was conducted using CiteSpace and VOSviewer to visualize collaboration networks, thematic clusters, and research fronts. Results: Publication output followed a three-phase exponential growth: engineered nucleases (2005-2012), CRISPR revolution (2013-2018), and precision translation (2019-2025). The United States and China dominated productivity; Harvard and the University of California were key institutional hubs. Hematologic disorders-particularly sickle cell disease and β-thalassemia-constituted the primary disease focus. Emerging frontiers include base and prime editing, epigenetic modulation, multiplex editing, and AI-assisted design. Collaboration networks remain predominantly national, with limited global integration. Conclusions: This study delineates the rapid evolution of gene editing therapies, highlighting robust clinical translation for hematological conditions while exposing critical gaps in non-hematopoietic tissues, delivery efficiency, long-term safety, and equitable access. These findings provide a strategic roadmap to broaden the therapeutic reach of gene editing across diverse disease domains.
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.