Frontiers in oncology · 2026
Multi-database bibliometric analysis and cross-database comparison of NOSES research in colorectal cancer: integrated evidence from WoSCC and PubMed.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Siyuan, Liu Xin, Kang Boyu, Zhang Yuanyao, Ma Bo, Yang Yang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: As an innovative surgical approach in the treatment of colorectal cancer, Natural Orifice Specimen Extraction Surgery (NOSES) offers several advantages. To ensure robust scientific comparison through multi-database inquiry, this study conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis using dual independent databases to explore research hotspots and future trends in colorectal cancer NOSES.
METHODS: This study employed a cross-database comparison strategy using two independent sources: 432 documents from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) and 411 documents from PubMed, covering the period from January 2010 to June 2025. The WoSCC dataset served as the primary analysis cohort to establish research trends, while the PubMed database functioned as an independent validation cohort to confirm and cross-verify key findings. Bibliometric analyses of authors, institutions, countries, publishing journals, abstracts, keywords, and cited documents were performed using the Bibliometrix R package, CiteSpace, and VOSviewer. Comparative analyses between the two databases were conducted to ensure robustness and reliability of identified research patterns.
RESULTS: The analysis included articles from 576 institutions, 112 journals, and 49 countries. China led global publications with 273 articles, while the United Kingdom achieved the highest citation count (2,306). Surgical Endoscopy emerged as the most prolific journal (46 papers) and the most cited (1,824 citations). Highly cited works predominantly focused on clinical trials and innovative surgical techniques in NOSES for colorectal cancer. Cross-database comparison confirmed that recent key research themes include "orifice specimen extraction," "chemoradiotherapy," and "pathological outcomes," reflecting the field's evolving priorities toward minimally invasive approaches and multidisciplinary integration.
CONCLUSION: This study reviewed the research on NOSES for colorectal cancer, providing a reference for subsequent studies. It mapped the research landscape in this field, summarized the current state of research, and offered data support and insights for future development.
METHODS: This study employed a cross-database comparison strategy using two independent sources: 432 documents from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) and 411 documents from PubMed, covering the period from January 2010 to June 2025. The WoSCC dataset served as the primary analysis cohort to establish research trends, while the PubMed database functioned as an independent validation cohort to confirm and cross-verify key findings. Bibliometric analyses of authors, institutions, countries, publishing journals, abstracts, keywords, and cited documents were performed using the Bibliometrix R package, CiteSpace, and VOSviewer. Comparative analyses between the two databases were conducted to ensure robustness and reliability of identified research patterns.
RESULTS: The analysis included articles from 576 institutions, 112 journals, and 49 countries. China led global publications with 273 articles, while the United Kingdom achieved the highest citation count (2,306). Surgical Endoscopy emerged as the most prolific journal (46 papers) and the most cited (1,824 citations). Highly cited works predominantly focused on clinical trials and innovative surgical techniques in NOSES for colorectal cancer. Cross-database comparison confirmed that recent key research themes include "orifice specimen extraction," "chemoradiotherapy," and "pathological outcomes," reflecting the field's evolving priorities toward minimally invasive approaches and multidisciplinary integration.
CONCLUSION: This study reviewed the research on NOSES for colorectal cancer, providing a reference for subsequent studies. It mapped the research landscape in this field, summarized the current state of research, and offered data support and insights for future development.