Trends in nanomedicine for colorectal cancer treatment: Bibliometric and visualization analysis (2010-2024)

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Recently, numerous studies have reported the application of nanomedicines in colorectal cancer treatment. However, no systematic bibliometric analysis has been conducted to examine the potential and mechanisms of action of nanomedicine in this context. Such an analysis may provide a comprehensive overview of the current research landscape, identify emerging trends, and highlight key areas for future investigation.

AIM

To describe the current global research landscape on the application of nanomedicine in colorectal cancer treatment.

METHODS

The Web of Science Core Collection database was searched for literature published from January 1, 2010, to August 7, 2024, focusing on the application of nanomedicine in colorectal cancer treatment. Bibliometric analysis and visualization mapping of countries, institutions, authors, keywords, references of the relevant research literature were conducted using CiteSpace (6.2R6), VOSviewer (1.6.20), and bibliometrix (based on R 4.3.2).

RESULTS

A total of 3598 articles were included, with a rapid increase in publication volume starting from 2010. China published the most papers on this topic, followed by the United States and India. The United States emerged as the central country in this field, and the Egyptian Knowledge Bank and Chinese Academy of Sciences were the institutions with the highest number of publications. The Chinese Academy of Sciences exhibited the highest centrality. The most prolific author was Zhang Y, whereas Siegel RL was the most cited author, and Li Y had the highest H-index. The International Journal of Nanomedicine had the most publications and Biomaterials received the most citations. Keyword co-occurrence analysis identified 11837 keywords grouped into 13 clusters with 15 high-frequency highlighted keywords. The top three keyword clusters were “0 colorectal cancer”, “1 drug delivery”, and “2 delivery”, with the top three keywords being “nanoparticles”, “colorectal cancer”, and “drug delivery”.

CONCLUSION

Research on nanomedicine for colorectal cancer has surged since 2010, focusing on “nanoparticles” and “drug delivery”. Future studies should investigate nanomaterial stability and target-specific drug release.

Key Words: Bibliometric; Citespace; VOSviewer; Hotspot; Nanomedicine; Colorectal cancer

Core Tip: This study applied bibliometric analysis to track the evolution and trends in nanomedicine for colorectal cancer from 2010 to 2024. It identified China as the leading publishing country, highlighted the pivotal role of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and underscored the surge in research post-2010. The analysis pinpoints “nanoparticles” and “drug delivery” as the dominant themes, suggesting that future research should address nanomaterial stability and targeted drug release to enhance therapeutic efficacy.

INTRODUCTION

According to epidemiological statistics, over 1.9 million new cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed globally in 2022, resulting in approximately 904000 deaths. Colorectal cancer ranks third in incidence and second in mortality among all cancer types[1]. Most cases are detected at an advanced stage. Traditional treatment modalities, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy, have limitations such as drug resistance, recurrence, metastasis, and significant side effects[2,3].

With the continuous development of nanotechnology, unique application potential in the biomedical industry has been observed, bringing new potential for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Nanotechnology has the potential to minimize systemic toxicity by developing functional particles for targeted therapy, thus providing an alternative strategy to circumvent multidrug resistance. Nanomaterials exhibit good biocompatibility, biodegradability, and drug-loading capabilities and can also be used as effective agents for photodynamic and photothermal therapy in colorectal cancer treatment. Nanomaterials are usually smaller than 100 nm, and their nanoscale dimensions enable them to penetrate natural barriers within the body, thereby significantly enhancing the efficiency of drug delivery. Additionally, the specific structure and properties of nanomaterials allow for the precisely control the drug release pattern, which not only optimizes the therapeutic effect but also helps achieve treatment precision[4,5].

Bibliometrics is dedicated to the analysis of distributional structure, quantitative relationships, patterns of evolution, and quantitative management of scholarly literature. Keyword co-occurrence analysis, which is a pivotal method within this bibliometrics, enables the identification of dominant themes and research hotspots within a specific academic domain. Furthermore, co-citation analysis facilitates a deeper comprehension of intertextual citation dynamics, thereby elucidating intellectual architecture and scholarly impact within a given area of inquiry[6]. Bibliometric techniques enable an in-depth analysis of current research focal points within a particular field and evaluate collaborative endeavors among nations, institutions, and researchers, while concurrently offering insights that may inform future research directions within that domain[7]. At present, bibliometrics have been widely applied in fields such as rheumatology and immunology[8], orthopedics[9], endocrinology[10], and traditional Chinese medicine[11]. This study used bibliometric methods to analyze the literature on the application of nanomedicine in colorectal cancer. The analysis evaluates the current state, research hotspots, and emerging trends in this field to provide insights for future scientific investigations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Search sources and search methods

This study used the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database as the source of retrieval. This database is widely used by the academic community, providing a comprehensive and standardized dataset for bibliometric analyses[12]. The search criteria were configured to encompass the period from January 1, 2010, to August 7, 2024, yielding an initial retrieval of 4211 documents. By filtering for document types classified as “Article” and “Review”, and subsequently excluding documents not aligned with the thematic focus through a review of their respective abstracts, the collection was refined to 3601 relevant documents. Further refinement involved the exclusion of non-English documents, conference proceedings, and duplicate entries, culminating in a curated dataset of 3598 documents for inclusion in the study (Figure 1). To ensure the stability and reliability of the literature search, the retrieval process was conducted within a single day on August 7, 2024, thereby minimizing the impact of potential fluctuations in document counts owing to the rapid database updates. The search strategies used in this study are listed in Table 1.

Figure 1  Flowchart overview.

Table 1 Publications screening.

No.	Publications	Screen
1	4211	TS = (“colorectal cancer” OR “colorectal carcinoma” OR “colorectal neoplasms” OR “rectum-colon carcinoma” OR “colorectal neoplasm” OR “colorectal carcinomas” OR “colon cancer” OR “rectal cancer”) AND TS = (“nanomaterials” OR “nanomaterial” OR “nanometer material” OR “nanometer materials” OR “nanoparticles” OR “nanomedicine”)
2	3601	Types of publications: (ARTICLES and REVIEW)
3	3598	Languages of publications: (ENGLISH)

Publication screening and acquisition

Two researchers (Zhang YR and Li HR) independently screened the literature included in this study. The literature was retrieved in a full record format, which includes comprehensive bibliographic details. These were stored as plain-text files under the “download_txt” label. Each file included key details, such as the title, abstract, authors, publication date, institutional affiliations, keywords, and references cited in the document.

Data analysis

The publications extracted from the WoSCC database was loaded into various analytical tools for processing and visualization, including CiteSpace (6.2R6), VOSviewer (1.6.20), and R-bibliometrix (R 4.3.2). To evaluate the research output, two commonly used indicators were considered, namely, the number of published papers (Np) and the citation count.

CiteSpace (6.2R6) is a specialized software for scientometric analysis and visualization. It allows for the exploration of scientific research trends, collaboration patterns, and emerging research topics using data mining, information analysis, and graphical visualization. In this study, CiteSpace was configured to conduct a “Time Slicing” analysis, with data segmented annually from 2010 to 2024. The “g-index” was applied as the data selection criterion, with the k value set at 15, while all other settings remained at their default values.

VOSviewer is a scientometric analysis tool that facilitates the generation of visual maps from network data. It offers three visualization outputs: Network, overlay, and density maps[13]. For the present analysis, Taiwan was treated as a part of China. R-Bibliometrix was employed to conduct bibliometric analyses of the leading countries, institutions, and researchers in this field[13]. The H-index, a widely used metric for evaluating a researcher’s academic output, is defined as the number of publications (N) that are cited at least N times. The g-index is a refinement of the H-index, providing a better measure of a researcher's cumulative citation impact[14]. The 2023 Impact Factor (IF) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR) for the journals mentioned in this paper were accessed from the most recent JCR edition, updated on June 20, 2024.

RESULTS

Overview of research literature on the application of nanomedicine in colorectal cancer

After retrieving relevant literature from the WoSCC database, 4211 documents were identified. After selection for “ARTICLES and REVIEWS,” document type 3601 documents were obtained. After selection for English language and exclusion of duplicate documents, 3598 documents were included in the study. These studies were published from January 1, 2010, to August 7, 2024.

Figure 2 illustrates the geographical distribution of studies published in this field in all countries and regions worldwide. China and the United States had the highest number of publications, followed by India, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Figure 2  Geographical distribution of published literature related to the application of nanomedicine in the treatment of colorectal cancer.

Figure 3 presents the publication volumes in this field between 2010 and 2024. The number of publications in this field increased annually over the study period. Starting in 2014, the publication volume grew rapidly and the annual cumulative publication volume followed an exponential curve (y = 61.839e^0.304x, R² = 0.9208).

Figure 3  Annual accumulated publication counts over the past 14 years.

Contributions of countries/regions to global publications

Table 2 presents the top 10 countries/regions by publication volume. China ranked first with the largest number of publications (1364/3598, 37.9%), followed by the United States (490/3598, 13.6%), India (440/3598, 12.2%), Iran (346/3598, 9.6%), and South Korea (270/3598, 7.5%). The country with the highest number of citations was China (39508), followed by the United States (23928), India (11436), Iran (8040), and South Korea (6099), etc.

Table 2 The top 10 countries with the highest number of published research papers.

No.	Country	Np	Np (%)	Nc	Centrality
1	China	1364	37.9	39508	0.11
2	United States	490	13.6	23928	0.35
3	India	440	12.2	11436	0.13
4	Iran	346	9.6	8040	0.13
5	Saudi Arabia	270	7.5	5551	0.13
6	South Korea	206	5.7	6099	0.12
7	Egypt	194	5.4	3609	0.13
8	United Kingdom	118	3.3	4850	0.14
9	Spain	116	3.2	3047	0.16
10	Italy	108	3	2841	0.09

Np: Number of publications; Nc: Number of citations.

The network (Figure 4A) and density graphs (Figure 4B) constructed using VOSviewer also demonstrate the research influence of China and the United States. As shown in Figure 4C, the largest connected component in the co-occurrence network of countries/regions consisted of 100 nodes and 425 connections (density = 0.0859). Purple corresponds to the betweenness centrality coefficients of countries/regions, including the United States (0.35), Spain (0.16), and the United Kingdom (0.14). This suggests that these countries/regions acted as intermediaries in the field. Figure 4D presents a distribution map of the top 20 corresponding authors' countries, supporting this observation.

Figure 4 Research contributions from various countries on the application of nanomedicine in the treatment of colorectal cancer. A: Network visualization of country collaboration; B: Density map of cooperation between countries; C: Network diagram showing international collaborations, with purple circles representing intermediation centrality; D: Top 20 countries for corresponding authors. MCP: Multiple-country publications; SCP: Single-country publications.

Analysis of institution publications

List of the top 10 institutions that published related literature is summarized in Table 3. These institutions are located in China (4/10), Iran (3/10), Saudi Arabia (2/10), and Egypt (1/10). The top 5 institutions in terms of publication volume were the Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB) (Egypt, 174/23.0%), the Chinese Academy of Sciences (China, 144/19.0%), King Saud University (Saudi Arabia, 86/11.3%), Sichuan University (China, 70/9.2%), and Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (Iran, 56/7.4%).

Table 3 The top 10 institutions with the highest number of published documents.

No.	Institution	Country	Np	Np (%)	Centrality
1	Egyptian Knowledge Bank	Egypt	174	23	0.29
2	Chinese Academy of Sciences	China	144	19	0.54
3	King Saud University	Sandi Arabia	86	11.3	0
4	Sichuan University	China	70	9.2	0.2
5	Mashhad University Medical Science	Iran	56	7.4	0.02
6	Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University	Sandi Arabia	48	6.3	0.14
7	Islamic Azad University	Iran	48	6.3	0.14
8	Fudan University	China	46	6.1	0.05
9	Tabriz University of Medical Science	Iran	45	6	0.05
10	Jilin University	China	41	15.4	0

Np: Number of publications; Nc: Number of citations.

The Chinese Academy of Sciences (0.54), EKB (0.29), and Sichuan University (0.20) exhibit the highest betweenness centrality, and their nodes are marked with purple circles (Figure 5), indicating that research from these institutions plays an intermediary central role.

Figure 5  Institution collaboration network graph, with purple circles representing intermediary centrality.

Author and co-citation author analysis

A total of 19305 authors who have published research on the application of nanomedicine in the treatment of colorectal cancer were identified. Figure 6A displays the top 10 authors with the highest average annual publication rates, whereas Figure 6B highlights the top 10 authors most relevant to this field, among which Zhang Y (53), Li Y (48), and Li J (41) ranked in the top 3 for the number of publications. Figure 6C presents the 10 authors with the greatest local impact based on the H-index, with the top 5 being Li Y (H = 24), Zhang Y (H = 22), Wang J (H = 18), Wang Y (H = 18), and Li J (H = 17), and Table 4 can intuitively reflect this situation.

Figure 6 Research contributions from different authors on the application of nanomedicine in the treatment of colorectal cancer. A: Top 10 authors in terms of average publication count per year; B: Top 10 most relevant authors; C: Top 10 influential authors based on the H-index.

Table 4 The top 10 authors with the highest local impact based on the H-index.

Author	H-index	G-index	M-index	Articles	Citations
Li Y	24	41	2.182	46	1714
Zhang Y	22	43	1.833	53	1885
Wang J	18	31	1.200	31	993
Wang Y	18	34	1.286	34	1167
Li J	17	34	1.417	41	1160
Gao Y	16	24	1.231	24	836
Khan FA	16	25	2.286	33	679
Li L	16	29	1.333	36	855
Zhang H	16	27	1.143	30	766
Chen Y	15	24	1.154	35	631

Co-cited authors are those who appear as citations together within the same article. In the co-citation analysis of authors, the five authors with the highest citation centrality were Zhang Y (0.28), Wang Y (0.2), Maeda H (0.2), Davis ME (0.16), and Siegel RL (0.14) (Table 5), and Figure 7 can intuitively display the frequency of co-citation among authors.

Figure 7 Analysis of co-cited authors. A: Author co-citation network graph; B: Author co-citation density map.

Table 5 Co-cited authors based on centrality.

Author	Freq	Total link strength	Centrality	Citations
Zhang Y	259	1222	0.28	299
Wang Y	205	1062	0.2	247
Maeda H	185	1042	0.2	242
Davis ME	63	397	0.16	87
Siegel RL	301	1297	0.14	320
Liu Y	171	938	0.13	201
Arias JL	28	276	0.12	74
Li Y	149	753	0.11	168
Li L	126	675	0.1	151
Jemal A	248	920	0.1	265

Freq: Frequency.

Journals and co-cited journals

Research on the application of nanomedicine for the treatment of colorectal cancer has been published in 674 different journals. The International Journal of Nanomedicine (127, IF: 6.6, JCR: Q1), which focuses on the application of nanotechnology in the biomedical field, including disease diagnosis, prevention, and treatment, had the highest number of publications and H-index (Figure 8A). This journal also covers specific topics such as nanomedicine delivery, biosensors, regenerative nanomedicine, nanodiagnosis, nanoinformatics, and nanotoxicity. The International Journal of Biological Macromolecules (84, IF: 7.7, JCR: Q1) had the second-highest number of publications. All journals in the top 10 belong to the JCR Q1 category and have an IF > 3 (Table 6).

Figure 8 Status of research papers on the application of nanomedicine in colorectal cancer treatment published in various journals. A: Top 10 journals ranked by H-index; B: Journal overlay map for research on the application of nanomedicine in colorectal cancer treatment (the left side represents the area covered by cited journals, and the right side represents the area covered by citing journals); C: VOSviewer visualization of cited journals; D: VOSviewer visualization density map of cited journals.

Table 6 Top 10 journals and co-cited journals with the most publications.

No.	Journal	Np	IF in 2023	JCR	Co-cited journal	Co-citations	IF in 2023	JCR
1	International Journal of Nanomedicine	127	6.6	Q1	Biomaterials	3867	12.8	Q1
2	International Journal of Biological Macromolecules International Journal of Pharmaceutics	84	7.7	Q1	Acs Nano	2814	15.8	Q1
3	Journal of Controlled Release	84	5.3	Q1	Adv Drug Deliver Rev	2044	15.2	Q1
4	Pharmaceutics	69	10.5	Q1	Cancer Res	2013	15.2	Q1
5	Biomaterials	63	10.9	Q1	Acs Appl Mater Inter	1717	8.3	Q1
6	Acs Applied Materials & Interfaces	62	12.8	Q1	Adv Mater	1668	27.4	Q1
7	Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology Scientific Reports	61	8.3	Q1	Angew Chem Int Edit	1500	16.1	Q1
8	Colloids and Surfaces B-Biointerfaces	59	4.5	Q1	Carbohyd Polym	1482	10.7	Q1
9		58	3.8	Q1	Clin Cancer Res	1112	10	Q1
10		57	5.4	Q1	Ca-Cancer J Clin	984	503.1	Q1

In the co-citation analysis of journals, 9 journals had more than 1000 citations. Biomaterials (3867, IF: 12.8, JCR: Q1) had the highest number of citations, followed by ACS Nano (2814, IF: 15.8, JCR: Q1) and Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews (2044, IF: 15.2, JCR: Q1). All the top 10 journals with the highest number of citations were JCR Q1 journals and had an IF > 8 (Table 6 and Figure 8B and C).

The overlay map of the journals shows the distribution of relationships between them. As shown in Figure 8D, there are mainly four citation paths, including two orange and two red paths, with the relevant pathways listed in Table 7.

Table 7 Paths between citing journals and cited journals.

No.	Journal	Cited journal	Path color
1	Molecular/Biology/Immunology	Mathematical/Mathematics/Mechanics	Orange
2	Molecular/Biology/Immunology	Veterinary/Animal/Parasitology	Orange
3	Physics/Materials/Chemistry	Mathematical/Mathematics/Mechanics	Red
4	Physics/Materials/Chemistry	Veterinary/Animal/Parasitology	Red

Co-cited reference analysis

Co-citation refers to the occurrence of two references cited simultaneously in other studies. The top 10 references with the highest co-citation frequencies are summarized in Table 8. Of the 131338 cited documents, 10 were cited over 30 times. The article by Siegel et al[15] published in Ca-Cancer J Clin in 2017 had the highest number of co-citations (104), with a betweenness centrality of 0.29. This was followed by an article by Sung et al[16], published in the Ca-A Cancer Journal for Clinicians in 2021, with a co-citation frequency of 81 and a betweenness centrality of 0.16 (Table 8 and Figure 9A). Citation burst analysis effectively highlights emerging research trends by identifying periods of increased attention to specific literature. This approach helps to pinpoint key studies that may serve as a foundation for further studies. The most significant citation burst took place in 2017, showing a burst intensity of 15.16[15], followed by a citation burst intensity of 10.62[17] as published in 2015 (Figure 9B).

Figure 9 Analysis of cited references. A: Visualization of cited references. Nodes represent co-cited references. The red circles represent the intermediary centrality of the references; B: The top 15 most cited references with the highest citation burst.

Table 8 Top 10 co-cited references referring to frequency.

Ref.	Year	Journal	Freq	Centrality
Siegel et al[32]	2019	Ca-Cancer J Clin	104	0.29
Sung et al[16]	2021	Ca-Cancer J Clin	81	0.16
Arnold et al[33]	2017	Gut	51	0.2
Dekker et al[34]	2019	Lancet	49	0.24
Rawla et al[35]	2019	Gastroenterol Rev	45	0.04
Shi et al[36]	2017	Nat Rev Cancer	44	0.23
Siegel et al[15]	2017	Ca-Cancer J Clin	43	0.06
Xi et al[37]	2021	Transl Oncol	40	0.06
Xie et al[38]	2020	Signal Transduct Tar	37	0.05
Senapati et al[39]	2018	Signal Transduct Tar	31	0.1

Freq: Frequency.

Analysis of co-occurrence keywords

The included studies contained 11837 keywords. The top 10 keywords, co-occurrence visualization, and VOSviewer network graphs are shown in Table 9, Figure 10A and B, respectively. The top 5 keywords were “nanoparticles” (1111), “colorectal cancer” (738), “drug delivery” (562), and “colon cancer” (554), with “delivery” having the highest betweenness centrality at 0.55.

Figure 10  Keyword analysis. A: Visualization of keyword co-occurrence and clustering; B: Density map of keyword co-occurrence; C: Timeline distribution of the top 13 clusters of keywords; D: The top 15 keywords with the highest citation burst.

Table 9 Top 10 keywords based on their occurrences.

No.	Keyword	Occurrences	Centrality	Year
1	Nanoparticles	1111	0.05	2010-2024
2	Colorectal cancer	959	0.28	2010-2024
3	Drug delivery	738	0.13	2010-2024
4	Colon cancer	562	0.34	2010-2024
5	Delivery	554	0.55	2010-2024
6	In vitro	500	0.14	2010-2024
7	Cells	356	0.14	2010-2024
8	Therapy	335	0.05	2010-2024
9	Apoptosis	313	0.77	2010-2024
10	Release	265	0.19	2010-2024

Figure 10C displays the keyword timeline, illustrating the appearance time of keywords in the clusters based on their emergence dates, with a total of 13 clusters identified, including “0 colorectal cancer”, “1 drug delivery”, “2 delivery”, “3 combination therapy”, and “4 cancer therapy”. Additionally, Figure 10D shows that the top 15 keywords with the highest citation bursts, “Drug delivery system” (10.61), “green synthesis” (7.82), "extract” (7.61), “immunogenic cell death” (7.15), “antioxidant” (8.18), and “immunotherapy” (7.57) experienced extended citation bursts between 2021 and 2024, suggesting that these fields have garnered growing interest from researchers.

DISCUSSION

Based on the WoSCC database, this study employed bibliometric methods to conduct a comprehensive analysis and visual presentation of the literature on the application of nanomedicine for the treatment of colorectal cancer. To ensure the retrieved literature remained relevant to the topics, we refrained from performing additional extended searches. Finally, 3598 publications were retrieved and analyzed. The findings of bibliometrics can provide researchers with a systematic and intuitive overview of the topic and demonstrate developmental trends in this field[18].

With the advances in nanotechnology in biomedicine, its application in drug delivery systems has become increasingly prevalent. Nanoscale drug carriers such as nano-bioprobes, nanoimaging agents, and drug-loaded nanoparticles exhibit significant biocompatibility owing to their size (1-100 nm). These nanocarriers can traverse natural biological barriers within the body, thereby enhancing the drug delivery efficiency[19]. Furthermore, with continuous advancements in nanomaterial research, researchers can utilize a wide variety of advanced medical materials, which has driven rapid progress in related fields and significantly improved the precision of drug delivery. The unique structural characteristics and functional design of nanomaterials offer new strategies for precise control of drug release, making it possible to finely regulate drug release dynamics. This not only enhances therapeutic efficacy but also significantly reduces potential side effects during treatment, providing crucial technical support for the development of precision medicine, availing vast application prospects[20].

Current research status

On August 7, 2024, 3598 articles on the application of nanomedicine in the treatment of colorectal cancer published in 674 different journals were retrieved. The number of publications in this field has steadily increased. The slow growth in publication volume from 2010 to 2014 suggests that less attention was paid to this field during this period. The year 2014 was a clear turning point, with a rapid increase in publication volume, indicating that researchers have started to pay attention to the application of nanomedicine in the treatment of colorectal cancer and have shown a strong interest in the subject[21]. The decrease in research literature from 2022 to 2023 may indicate that research during this period encountered technical bottlenecks or engagement in milestone research that requires time for verification.

The analysis and visualization of publication volumes from countries and institutions indicate that the country with the highest Np was China (1364/3598, 37.9%), followed by the United States (490/3598, 13.6%), and India (440/3598, 12.2%). China had the most citations (39508), followed by the United States (23928) and India (11436). The betweenness centrality results show that the United States is ranked first (0.35), indicating that although it has a lower publication volume than China, its quality is higher. Additionally, the United States has close international cooperation, acting as a “connecting bridge” in research in this field and has significant influence. The betweenness centrality indices for Spain (0.16) and the United Kingdom (0.14) demonstrated that these countries were significantly involved in international collaborative endeavors, exerting considerable influence within the academic community. This involvement underscores their pivotal role in promoting global scholarly exchange and advancing the collective progress of research and innovation on international platforms. Their contributions are acknowledged for their impact, which has been instrumental in driving the frontiers of scientific and technological advancement worldwide.

The institutions with the highest number of publications were the EKB (174/23.0%) and Chinese Academy of Sciences (144/19.0%). The Chinese Academy of Sciences has the highest betweenness centrality (0.54), indicating that it has a significant influence in this field and actively participates in international cooperation, followed by the EKB (0.29) and Sichuan University (0.20). The participation of these institutions in international collaborations coupled with their significant influence underscores their active engagement in global academic research. This involvement indicates their crucial role in advancing the boundaries of knowledge and fostering advancement within the scientific community. Their contributions have been pivotal to the evolution of scientific discourse and expansion of scholarly inquiry worldwide.

The analysis and visualization of a researchers’ publication volume show that the researcher with the highest publication volume is Zhang Y[22] from China (53), who has conducted a series of studies on the application of nanomedicine in the treatment of colorectal cancer, especially towards improving the efficacy of chemotherapy and targeted therapy for colorectal cancer with the help of nanobionics. Additionally, Zhang Y had the highest betweenness centrality. Li Y had the highest H-index (H = 24)[23], which indicates a researchers’ role in the development of a field, who can therefore help identify potential collaborators for future research. Through a thorough search of the WoSCC database, we found research conducted by Professor Firdos Alam Khan from the Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University in Saudi Arabia[24], who successfully synthesized gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) via a green synthetic approach utilizing Gum Arabic and Cinnamon. These nanoparticles demonstrated significant cytotoxic effects on colorectal cancer cells, with minimal toxicity to normal cells, indicating a degree of selectivity. This work not only fills a gap in the literature on the synthesis of nanoparticles with Gum Arabic and Cinnamon but also suggests their potential as effective agents in the treatment of colorectal cancer, warranting further investigation in the field of oncology.

Ansari et al[25] also made significant strides in the field of nanotechnology, particularly in the synthesis of copper oxide nanoparticles (CuO NPs) using the Indian herbal medicine “Septilin”. This innovative approach not only harnesses the natural properties of Septilin, but also results in CuO NPs that exhibit potential antibacterial and antibiofilm capabilities, in addition to their anticancer activity against colon cancer cells. These findings open new avenues for biomedical research, highlighting the convergence of traditional medicine and modern nanotechnology in combating cancer and antibiotic resistance.

The literature in this field has been published in 674 different journals, with the International Journal of Nanomedicine having the highest output, followed by the International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. A total of 11207 journals have been co-cited, with Biomaterials having the highest number of citations, followed by Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. This indicates that these journals have made significant contributions to developments in this field. Notably, most of the research comes from journals with a high impact factor in the fields of molecular biology and immunology. The journal overlay map shows the thematic distribution of the journals, with four citation paths that illustrate the current focus on the application of nanomedicine in the treatment of colorectal cancer and how it can be accurately targeted, efficiently delivered, and enhanced in biocompatibility.

Siegel et al[15] in “Ca-Cancer J Clin” in 2017 has the highest number of co-citations, reaching (104), with a betweenness centrality of 0.29. This study comprehensively summarizes the epidemiological situation of colorectal cancer worldwide and the current situation and challenges in the treatment of colorectal cancer.

Research hotspots

Keywords summarize the themes and core content of a research manuscript. By analyzing and visually presenting keyword co-occurrence, clustering, and burst detection, one can understand research hotspots and future development trends in a particular field[26]. Based on the frequency of occurrence, the top 10 keywords are “nanoparticles”, “colorectal cancer”, “drug delivery”, “colon cancer”, “delivery”, “in vitro”, “cells”, “therapy”, “apoptosis”, and “release”. Among them, “delivery” had the highest betweenness centrality (0.55), representing its widespread attention in research within this field. Sendi et al[27] developed a nano-formulation of miR-122. This study proposes a strategy for improving cancer prevention and treatment through nanomedicine-based miRNA delivery, utilizing the high specificity and efficiency of nanomedicine to deliver miRNA to hepatocytes, which has therapeutic potential for the prevention and treatment of liver metastasis in colorectal cancer.

Based on the clustering of keywords, 13 clusters were identified, including mainly: “0 colorectal cancer”, “1 drug delivery”, “2 delivery”, “3 combination therapy”, and “4 cancer therapy”. We also analyzed the top 15 keywords with the highest citation bursts, among which “Drug delivery system” (10.61), “green synthesis” (7.82), “extract” (7.61), “immunogenic cell death” (7.15), “antioxidant” (8.18), and “immunotherapy” (7.57) exhibited prolonged citation bursts from 2021 to 2024. This indicates that the main hotspots in the application of nanomaterials in colorectal cancer are focused on improving the stability of nanomaterial structures and delivery, reducing the immune responses caused by nanomaterials, enhancing the biocompatibility of nanomaterials, accurately targeting and efficiently releasing nanomaterials, and improving therapeutic effects while reducing side effects. This finding suggests future research directions[21].

The academic focus within this domain has undergone notable evolution, transitioning from the initial stages of nanomaterial fabrication and preliminary therapeutic exploration to more sophisticated treatment modalities, pharmaceutical designs, drug delivery systems, and immunotherapy, all of which are oriented toward clinical applications. Concurrently, the increased attention paid to environmentally benign synthesis methods, epitomized by the term “green synthesis,” reflects an emerging emphasis on sustainable development and eco-conscious research approaches. This shift underscores a commitment to integrate ecological stewardship with scientific advancement, ensuring that the progress of the field is in harmony with environmental sustainability principles[28].

Through a bibliometric analysis, this study systematically and comprehensively introduced the application of nanomedicine in the treatment of colorectal cancer, and identified current research hotspots and emerging future trends in the field.

Compared with existing studies, our analysis offers a macro perspective, illustrating research trends and their evolution from 2010 to 2024 (Figure 10D). Furthermore, our findings highlight “drug delivery systems”, “green synthesis”, and “extracts” as emerging focal points of study, which have not been sufficiently addressed in previous systematic research[29]. Nanomedicine has immense potential to enhance the efficiency of drug delivery and minimize side effects, thereby providing a scientific foundation for healthcare policymakers[30].

Bibliometric analysis, which employs quantitative methodologies, offers an exhaustive and macroscopic examination of the research domain, thereby augmenting the systematicity and transparency of scholarly inquiries while mitigating the influence of subjectivity[31]. However, this study had certain limitations. In contrast to traditional narrative literature reviews, bibliometric approaches may not provide an in-depth exploration of individual documents, and the choice of databases could potentially introduce biases into the analytical outcomes. Due to limitations in the analysis software, this study only incorporates literature retrieved from the WoSCC database, excluding other relevant databases. Consequently, the literature analyzed may not encompass the full body of research in this field. In the future, we will optimize the search method and explore more scientific literature analyses and visualization tools.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate a notable surge in nanomedicine research related to colorectal cancer since 2010, with primary focus on “nanoparticles” and “drug delivery.” While China leads in publication volume, the United States holds a central position in this field, highlighting its significant influence and extensive international collaboration. Additionally, the Chinese Academy of Sciences has emerged as the most influential institution in this domain. In summary, as nanotechnology continues to advance, the application of nanomedicine in colorectal cancer treatment is becoming increasingly prevalent. Future research hotspots include the following: (1) Enhancing the stability and biocompatibility of nanomaterials; (2) Achieving precise and efficient accumulation and release of nanomedicines at the tumor site; and (3) Addressing challenges associated with the long-term toxicity of carriers.