The 100 Most Influential Papers and Recent Trends in the Field of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours: A Bibliometric Analysis

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Bibliometric analysis is a statistical tool used to examine the exponential growth in medical research. Many analogous analyses have been conducted, but none existed for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Hence, we conducted a citation analysis of the hundred most cited and recently published articles on this topic.

Methods

Scopus was chosen as the primary database, through which the top 100 and recent publications were ranked according to the citation count and were then analysed.

Results

The 100 most cited articles were published between 1992 and 2013, among which the greatest number of articles were published in the years 2002 (n = 15) and 2006 (n = 11). Amidst the 24 countries from which the articles originated, the United States of America (n = 76) topped the list. The Journal of Clinical Oncology (n = 15) and the American Journal of Clinical Pathology (n = 10) contributed majority of the top articles. Harvard Medical School alone produced 44 of the top 100. Articles from 2013 to date showed the same trend as that of top 100 articles regarding origin and institutions.

Conclusion

Basic science and genetics of GISTs are established, and new drugs are being studied for medicinal therapy. Surgical management and diagnostics of these tumors, however, are yet to be studied as extensively.

Related collections

Most cited references 22

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Gastrointestinal pacemaker cell tumor (GIPACT): gastrointestinal stromal tumors show phenotypic characteristics of the interstitial cells of Cajal.

L Kindblom, H Remotti, F Aldenborg … (1998)

The interstitial cells of Cajal (ICC) form a complex cell network within the gastrointestinal tract wall where they function as a pacemaker system. Expression of the kit proto-oncogene is essential for the development of this system. The aim of our study was to examine the hypothesis that gastrointestinal stromal tumors differentiate toward cells with an ICC phenotype. Ultrastructurally, 58 stromal tumors were characterized and found to share many features with ICC. Seventy-eight stromal tumors were immunophenotyped, particularly with regard to the kit receptor. All 78 tumors revealed strong, homogeneous immunoreactivity for the kit receptor as did ICC of adjacent and control gastrointestinal walls. Focal hyperplasia and hypertrophy of kit receptor positive cells were also observed in the gastrointestinal wall adjacent to the tumors. CD34 immunoreactivity observed in interstitial cells surrounding Auerbach's ganglia suggests that a subpopulation of ICC is CD34 positive and may explain why 56 of 78 stromal tumors were CD34 positive. Thirty control tumors, including gastrointestinal leiomyomas and leiomyosarcomas, were all negative for the kit receptor. We conclude that gastrointestinal stromal tumors show striking morphological and immunophenotypic similarities with ICC and that they may originate from stem cells that differentiate toward a pacemaker cell phenotype. We propose that the noncommittal name "gastrointestinal stromal tumor" be replaced by gastrointestinal pacemaker cell tumor.

0 comments Cited 235 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science

Nisa Bakkalbasi, Kathleen Bauer, Janis Glover … (2006)

Background Researchers turn to citation tracking to find the most influential articles for a particular topic and to see how often their own published papers are cited. For years researchers looking for this type of information had only one resource to consult: the Web of Science from Thomson Scientific. In 2004 two competitors emerged – Scopus from Elsevier and Google Scholar from Google. The research reported here uses citation analysis in an observational study examining these three databases; comparing citation counts for articles from two disciplines (oncology and condensed matter physics) and two years (1993 and 2003) to test the hypothesis that the different scholarly publication coverage provided by the three search tools will lead to different citation counts from each. Methods Eleven journal titles with varying impact factors were selected from each discipline (oncology and condensed matter physics) using the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). All articles published in the selected titles were retrieved for the years 1993 and 2003, and a stratified random sample of articles was chosen, resulting in four sets of articles. During the week of November 7–12, 2005, the citation counts for each research article were extracted from the three sources. The actual citing references for a subset of the articles published in 2003 were also gathered from each of the three sources. Results For oncology 1993 Web of Science returned the highest average number of citations, 45.3. Scopus returned the highest average number of citations (8.9) for oncology 2003. Web of Science returned the highest number of citations for condensed matter physics 1993 and 2003 (22.5 and 3.9 respectively). The data showed a significant difference in the mean citation rates between all pairs of resources except between Google Scholar and Scopus for condensed matter physics 2003. For articles published in 2003 Google Scholar returned the largest amount of unique citing material for oncology and Web of Science returned the most for condensed matter physics. Conclusion This study did not identify any one of these three resources as the answer to all citation tracking needs. Scopus showed strength in providing citing literature for current (2003) oncology articles, while Web of Science produced more citing material for 2003 and 1993 condensed matter physics, and 1993 oncology articles. All three tools returned some unique material. Our data indicate that the question of which tool provides the most complete set of citing literature may depend on the subject and publication year of a given article.

0 comments Cited 158 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Evidence-based medicine.

D L Sackett (1997)

Evidence-based medicine, whose philosophical origins extend back to mid-19th century Paris and earlier, is the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence-based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research. By individual clinical expertise we mean the proficiency and judgment that we individual clinicians acquire through clinical experience and clinical practice. Increased expertise is reflected in many ways, but especially in more effective and efficient diagnosis and in the more thoughtful identification and compassionate use of individual patients' predicaments, rights, and preferences in making clinical decisions about their care. By best available external clinical evidence we mean clinically relevant research, often from the basic sciences of medicine, but especially from patient centered clinical research into the accuracy and precision of diagnostic tests (including the clinical examination), the power of prognostic markers, and the efficacy and safety of therapeutic, rehabilitative, and preventive regimens. External clinical evidence both invalidates previously accepted diagnostic tests and treatment and replaces them with new ones that are more powerful, more accurate, more efficacious, and safer. Good doctors use both individual clinical expertise and the best available external evidence, and neither alone is enough. Without clinical expertise, practice risks becoming tyrannized by external evidence, for even excellent external evidence may be inapplicable to or inappropriate for an individual patient. Without current best external evidence, practice risks becoming rapidly out of date, to the detriment of patients. The practice of evidence-based medicine is a process of life-long, self-directed learning in which caring for our own patients creates the need for clinically important information about diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, and other clinical and health care issues, and in which we (1) convert these information needs into answerable questions; (2) track down, with maximum efficiency, the best evidence with which to answer them (whether from the clinical examination, the diagnostic laboratory from research evidence, or other sources); (3) critically appraise that evidence for its validity (closeness to the truth) and usefulness (clinical applicability); (4) integrate this appraisal with our clinical expertise and apply it in practice; and (5) evaluate our performance.

0 comments Cited 155 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Cureus

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Cureus

Journal ID (issn): 2168-8184

Title: Cureus

Publisher: Cureus (Palo Alto (CA) )

ISSN (Electronic): 2168-8184

Publication date (Electronic, pub): 12 March 2018

Publication date (Electronic, collection): March 2018

Volume: 10

Issue: 3

Electronic Location Identifier: e2311

Affiliations

[1 ] Civil Hospital Karachi, Dow University of Health Sciences (DUHS), Karachi, Pakistan

[2 ] Gasteroenterology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, United States

[3 ] Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.

Author notes

Hira F. Akbar hira.feroz@ 123456gmail.com

Article

DOI: 10.7759/cureus.2311

PMC ID: 5947978

PubMed ID: 29755907

SO-VID: b850ec3d-ef8e-4a7e-8a03-3653a59a8610

License:

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

The 100 Most Influential Papers and Recent Trends in the Field of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours: A Bibliometric Analysis

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Core Readings in Statistical Mediation Analysis

Most cited references 22

Gastrointestinal pacemaker cell tumor (GIPACT): gastrointestinal stromal tumors show phenotypic characteristics of the interstitial cells of Cajal.

Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science

Evidence-based medicine.

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 158

Cited by 2

Most referenced authors 302