ArticleMedicine2026
Research trends and hotspots in colorectal cancer screening: Bibliometric and visualization analysis (2015-2024).
Article 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
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC), is a highly prevalent malignant tumor worldwide, and early screening is key to improving its prognosis. Currently, CRC screening research is growing exponentially, but its core research hotspots, evolutionary trends, and interdisciplinary features are not clear. In this study, we used bibliometric analysis to analyze the distribution of literature, research hotspots, and cutting-edge developments in the field of CRC screening worldwide, and to provide a scientific basis for optimizing screening strategies.
methodsPublications on CRC screening from 2015 to 2024 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. VOSviewer (v1.6.20), RStudio (v4.4.1), and CiteSpace (v6.4.2) were used for bibliometric and visual analyses. The main analyses included publication trends, countries, authors, journals, references, and keywords.
resultA total of 3245 publications were included in the analysis. Global publications on CRC screening showed a steady upward trend over the past decade, with an annual growth rate of 2.17%. The United States contributed the highest number of publications, and the University of North Carolina ranked as the most productive institution. GASTROENTEROLOGY and GUT were the most frequently cited journals in this field. Lansdorp‑Vogelaar I was among the most prolific authors. The most cited article was "CRC screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society." Keyword analysis showed that the research hotspots in this field included colonoscopy, biomarker, adenoma detection rate, artificial intelligence, etc.
conclusionCurrent research in CRC screening focuses on traditional screening methods, population-related factors, and emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence. Stronger international collaboration and interdisciplinary studies are needed to advance 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.