SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
ctDNA- and cfDNA-based liquid biopsy in bladder cancer and urothelial carcinoma: bibliometric mapping and cross-database coverage analysis, 2008-2025.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA), cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and urinary tumour DNA are increasingly studied in bladder cancer and urothelial carcinoma. We mapped the development, knowledge structure and clinical emphasis of this ctDNA/cfDNA-centred literature and assessed its coverage across three bibliographic databases. Methods: Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC), Scopus and PubMed/MEDLINE were searched on July 31, 2026, for records published in 2008-2025. Reviewer-expanded strategies included liquid biopsy, ctDNA/cfDNA, molecular residual disease, molecular relapse, tumour-informed assays, urinary DNA, methylation, TERT and FGFR3. WoSCC was the primary mapping database; Scopus and PubMed/MEDLINE were coverage comparators. Python, VOSviewer and CiteSpace were used for descriptive and network analyses. Newly retrieved WoSCC records underwent duplicate independent screening and full third-reviewer quality control. Results: The searches retrieved 1,903 WoSCC, 3,201 Scopus and 230 PubMed/MEDLINE records. After WoSCC deduplication and eligibility assessment, 494 records formed the main set and 698 formed a contextual set. The main set received 17,031 citations (median 19; interquartile range 7-42), and annual output reached 82 records in 2025. Scopus covered 456/494 main records and PubMed/MEDLINE covered 93/494. Among 557 newly assessed records, the reviewers initially agreed on 433 (77.7%; Cohen's kappa, 0.620); all records then underwent third-reviewer full-text quality control. Conclusions: The expanded search identifies a larger DNA-focused literature than the original strategy and confirms unequal database coverage. Thematic clusters and citation bursts trace a shift from early methylation-marker research towards ctDNA-based molecular residual disease assessment and perioperative treatment stratification. Bibliometric prominence describes research activity, not diagnostic accuracy, predictive validity or treatment benefit.
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.