International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025
From open to minimally invasive surgery: bibliometric insights into gallbladder carcinoma surgical research.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Xu Haibo, Wu Yichen, Fang Haixing, Gu Zongting
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) remains a challenging hepatobiliary malignancy with rising global incidence, yet comprehensive analyses of surgical research trends, particularly comparing conventional and minimally invasive approaches, are lacking. The absence of a bibliometric synthesis hinders the identification of knowledge gaps and collaborative opportunities in this evolving field.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to: map the global research landscape of GBC surgical interventions, quantify contributions from leading countries, institutions, and authors, and identify emerging frontiers and disparities between open and minimally invasive surgical research.
METHODS: We conducted a bibliometric analysis of 416 peer-reviewed articles (four major databases, 2015-2024) using CiteSpace and VOSviewer. Metrics included publication trends, citation networks, keyword co-occurrence, and burst detection. Surgical techniques were stratified into conventional open and minimally invasive approaches for comparative analysis.
RESULTS: Annual publications increased by 150% since 2015, with Japan, the U.S., and China contributing 67.0% of output. The University System of Ohio led institutional productivity (26 publications), while Annals of Surgical Oncology was the highest-impact journal (919 citations). Minimally invasive research surged post-2015, driven by Asian institutions (73.6% of output), with robotic surgery. Open surgery retained dominance in advanced-stage GBC due to higher R0 resection rates.
CONCLUSION: This first bibliometric review of GBC surgical research underscores Asia's leadership in minimally invasive innovation and persistent gaps in evidence-based guidelines. We propose prioritizing international registries, standardized outcome reporting, and AI-driven surgical planning to bridge disparities. The study provides a roadmap for aligning research agendas with global disease burden and technological advancements.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to: map the global research landscape of GBC surgical interventions, quantify contributions from leading countries, institutions, and authors, and identify emerging frontiers and disparities between open and minimally invasive surgical research.
METHODS: We conducted a bibliometric analysis of 416 peer-reviewed articles (four major databases, 2015-2024) using CiteSpace and VOSviewer. Metrics included publication trends, citation networks, keyword co-occurrence, and burst detection. Surgical techniques were stratified into conventional open and minimally invasive approaches for comparative analysis.
RESULTS: Annual publications increased by 150% since 2015, with Japan, the U.S., and China contributing 67.0% of output. The University System of Ohio led institutional productivity (26 publications), while Annals of Surgical Oncology was the highest-impact journal (919 citations). Minimally invasive research surged post-2015, driven by Asian institutions (73.6% of output), with robotic surgery. Open surgery retained dominance in advanced-stage GBC due to higher R0 resection rates.
CONCLUSION: This first bibliometric review of GBC surgical research underscores Asia's leadership in minimally invasive innovation and persistent gaps in evidence-based guidelines. We propose prioritizing international registries, standardized outcome reporting, and AI-driven surgical planning to bridge disparities. The study provides a roadmap for aligning research agendas with global disease burden and technological advancements.