ArticleMedicine2026
Global research status and trends in macrodactyly research: Bibliometric and visualized analysis from 2005 to 2025.
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
Abstract
backgroundTo provide a comprehensive bibliometric and visualized analysis of global macrodactyly research from 2005 to 2025, identify publication trends, leading contributors, research hotspots, and emerging directions in this rare congenital disorder.
methodsPublications from January 1,2005 to November 31,2025 were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. English-language articles and reviews were included using the search terms "macrodactyly," "megalodactyly," "digital gigantism," and "giant digit." After removing duplicates, retracted items, and non-relevant records, eligible studies were analyzed. Microsoft Excel, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace were used to evaluate publication trends, geographic distribution, collaboration networks, and keyword co-occurrence patterns.
resultsA total of 162 publications met the inclusion criteria. Annual output increased steadily, with peaks in 2014 and 2020, and a strong upward cumulative trend (R2 = 0.9933). Research was mainly concentrated in the USA, China, and Europe, with limited intercontinental collaboration. Author and institutional analyses revealed several distinct collaboration clusters. Keyword co-occurrence and temporal mapping demonstrated a shift from early clinical and surgical topics toward molecular and genetic research, particularly involving PIK3CA-related mechanisms.
conclusionMacrodactyly research has expanded over the past 2 decades, evolving from clinical descriptions to mechanistic studies driven by advances in molecular genetics. The identification of PIK3CA mutations has reshaped the field and introduced opportunities for targeted therapy. Despite increasing output, international collaboration remains limited. Future work should focus on multicenter studies, precision medicine approaches, and the development of evidence-based treatment strategies.
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.