ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2026
Bibliometric mapping of robot-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection: research trends, collaboration networks, and emerging themes.
Review in Journal of robotic 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.
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
Robot-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) represents a small but growing interdisciplinary field integrating gastrointestinal endoscopy and robotics. This study characterized publication patterns, collaboration networks, citation structures, research hotspots, and thematic evolution within a predefined bibliometric corpus. English-language Articles and Reviews published from January 1, 2000, to June 1, 2026, were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) and screened according to predefined criteria. Flexible intraluminal robotic systems used for colorectal ESD were additionally verified. After standardized data cleaning and harmonization, bibliometric analyses and scientific knowledge mapping were performed using Bibliometrix/Biblioshiny, VOSviewer, and SCImago Graphica. Seventy-nine publications published between 2010 and 2026 were included, covering 50 journals, 344 authors, 93 institutions, and 15 countries or regions. Publication output increased after 2019. China showed the highest research participation and collaboration-network connectivity, whereas Singapore had the highest average citations per publication. Co-authorship analysis identified several closely connected author and institutional clusters, interpreted as network connectivity rather than evidence of sustained collaboration. Author keyword analysis, based on 62 publications with Author Keywords, showed temporal shifts toward traction, flexible endoscopy, continuum robots, flexible instruments, and motion and force control. Overall, these findings describe the bibliometric landscape of the WoSCC-derived literature. Further technical and clinical studies are needed to clarify the safety, effectiveness, and translational value of different robotic approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42704420What 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.