The 100 most-cited articles in the field of colorectal diseases from 1955 to 2018: A bibliometric analysis
- Published
- Accepted
- Subject Areas
- Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Science and Medical Education, Science Policy
- Keywords
- Colorectal disease, citation classics, most-cited article, potential articles, bibliometric analysis
- Copyright
- © 2019 LuoLuo et al.
- Licence
- This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ Preprints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
- Cite this article
- 2019. The 100 most-cited articles in the field of colorectal diseases from 1955 to 2018: A bibliometric analysis. PeerJ Preprints 7:e27602v1 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.27602v1
Abstract
Abstract
Background: The number of times that an article was cited reflected its impact. In this study, we aimed to recognize and analyze the characteristics of the most frequently cited articles in the field of colorectal diseases.
Methods: We identified the 100 highest cited articles using the terms ‘colorectal’ or ‘colon’ or ‘rectal’ or ‘IBD’ or ‘ulcerative colitis’ or ‘Crohn disease’ or ‘colonoscopy’ in Web of Science. Articles were analyzed to evaluate the characteristics including number of citations, country of origin, institutions of origin based on the first author affiliation, study type and others.
Results: Of the top cited publications, the number of citations ranged from 1479 to 8834 with a mean of 2304.85 citations per article. The journal with the greatest number of most-cited articles was New England Journal of Medicine (n=23), followed by Science (n=13) and Nature (n=12). These papers were published in 14 different countries, of which more than half were from the United States (n=64). The most popular field was colorectal cancer (n=51), followed by colonic tumor (n=21). Most of the papers were basic science studies (n=44) and randomized controlled trials (n=29).
Conclusion: Our study could provide a historical perspective on the scientific progress in the field of colorectal diseases, which would lay a firm foundation for future research.
Author Comment
This is a submission to PeerJ for review.
Supplemental Information
Raw data
All raw data included and analyzed in our study.