SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
Application of Mendelian randomized research method in oncology research: bibliometric analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Background: Cancer has always been a difficult problem in the medical field, and with the gradual deepening of Genome-wide association studies (GWAS), Mendelian randomization methods have been increasingly used to study cancer pathogenesis. In this study, we examine the literature on Mendelian cancer, summarize the status of the research, and analyze the development trends in the field. Methods: Publications on "Mendelian Randomization - Cancer" were retrieved and downloaded from the Web of Science Core Collection database. CiteSpace 6.2.R4, VOSviewer 1.6.19, Scimago Graphica 1.0.38, Bibliometrix R-package, and a bibliometric online analysis platform were used for data analysis and visualization. An in-depth analysis of country or region, authors, journals, keywords, and references was performed to provide insights into the content related to the field. Results: A total of 836 articles were included in the analysis; 643 authors from 72 countries had published articles related to the field. China and Harvard University (among countries and institutions, respectively) had the highest number of articles. Martin, Richard M and Smith, George Davey were the largest contributors. A total of 27 cancers have been studied, with breast, colorectal, and liver cancers being the most studied. Conclusion: This study is the first to use bibliometric methods to visualize the application of Mendelian randomization analysis in the field of cancer, revealing research trends and research frontiers in the field. This information will provide a strong reference for cancer researchers and epidemiologic researchers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.