Published online Jul 26, 2020. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i14.3021
Peer-review started: March 28, 2020
First decision: April 24, 2020
Revised: May 30, 2020
Accepted: July 4, 2020
Article in press: July 4, 2020
Published online: July 26, 2020
Processing time: 119 Days and 23.1 Hours
In the past decade, clinical research on colorectal cancer has made significant progress with deepening theoretical and molecular research on its pathogenesis. However, many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shortfalls, such as lacking systematic methodological knowledge, insufficient sample size, etc.
Clinical colorectal cancer research in China has progressed, but the quality of RCTs is still low. Therefore, we compared the RCTs in China with those of other countries to identify deficiencies and improve Chinese research.
We used bibliometric analysis to evaluate the research status of colorectal cancer RCTs in China and abroad and provide references for the design, cooperation, and implementation of colorectal cancer RCTs in China.
We retrieved the RCTs studies related to colorectal cancer published between 2008 and 2018 in PubMed and the Web of Science. The literature was independently screened and extracted by two investigators. The bibliometric methods were used for statistical analysis of the publication years, countries/regions, authors, institutions, source journal, quoted times, key words, and authors. We used Microsoft Excel 2013 and VOSviewer 1.6.4 software to analyze the data.
Colorectal cancer RCTs have shown an upward trend from 2008 to 2018. Most of the top 10 research institutions were from the United States and the United Kingdom, and most of the related research journals were sponsored by European and American countries. The 15 most cited studies were comprised of international multicenter clinical research, with few participants from Chinese institutions. Network visualization using key words showed that RCTs on colorectal cancer focused on screening, disease-free survival, drug treatment, surgical methods, clinical trials, quality of life, and prognosis. The results of the coauthorship network analysis showed that Chinese researchers are less involved in international exchanges.
High-quality RCTs are increasingly favored by top international journals. There is a large gap between Chinese and international clinical research; researchers should gradually standardize clinical trials, ensure accuracy, strengthen international multicenter cooperation, and emphasize quality control.
There is a large gap between Chinese and international clinical research according to our bibliometric analysis. Chinese researchers should gradually standardize clinical trials, ensure accuracy, strengthen international multicenter cooperation, and emphasize quality control.