ReviewMedicine2026
Research hotspots and evolution trends of human amniotic fluid stem cells: A cite space bibliometric analysis based on WoSCC and PubMed.
Review 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
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically review the research hotspots, knowledge structure, and evolution trends in the field of human amniotic fluid stem cells (hAFSCs).
methodsA bibliometric approach was employed using CiteSpace 6.2.R4 software, with the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC, 2006-2026, including 601 original research papers) and PubMed (1984-2024, including 960 publications) as data sources. Standardized, reproducible search strategies (including synonyms, abbreviations, MeSH terms, and Boolean operators) were developed for each database, and literature screening followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Using the WoSCC dataset as the core, we generated comprehensive visualizations covering author collaboration networks, countries, institutions, keyword co-occurrence, clustering, timelines, time zones, and emerging terms; the PubMed data were used for comparison of long-term publication trends.
resultsThe global publication volume in the field of hAFSCs has shown an overall upward trend, which can be divided into 3 phases: exploratory inception (1984-2006), rapid growth (2007-2013), and stable deepening (2014 to present). The United States (177 articles) and Italy (132 articles) form the dual engines of international collaboration, while China ranks third in publication volume (75 articles) but exhibits relatively weak international collaboration (centrality 0.02). The evolution of research themes is clear: from 2006 to 2009, the focus was on cell isolation, characterization, and in vitro culture; from 2010 to 2015, the scope expanded to multipotent differentiation, animal models, and the treatment of fetal diseases; and since 2018, exosomes/extracellular vesicles have emerged as the most active frontier with the highest emergence intensity (7.37).
conclusionBibliometric analysis indicates that research on hAFSCs has evolved from basic biological characterization into a comprehensive field encompassing multipotent differentiation, tissue engineering, and exosome regulation. Exosomes/extracellular vesicles and targeted repair of organ damage are currently the primary areas of focus. This study is a descriptive analysis; all conclusions are based on publication trend statistics and do not involve validation of clinical translational efficacy.
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.