Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Bibliometric analysis identifies key contributions in glioblastoma research, revealing neurosurgery's significant role and trends in immunotherapy.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We conducted a bibliometric analysis of highly cited glioblastoma (GBM) research published between 2013 and 2023, focusing on identifying key academic departments and institutional contributions within the United States. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the Web of Science database was performed to identify “highly cited articles,” defined as those receiving the top one percent for citations within their field each year. Primary research articles authored by researchers at U.S. institutions between 2013 and 2023 were included. We categorized articles by subject area and departmental contributions and used VOSviewer and R for data visualization and analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 169 highly cited GBM articles were included in the study. Neurosurgery emerged as the largest contributing department type, accounting for 28.4% (48/169) of highly cited articles. This was followed by departments of biology or genetics (22/169), neurology or neuro-oncology (16/169), and radiology or radiation oncology (13/169). “Immunology and Immunotherapy” was the dominant subject area for highly cited papers, with 50.3% (85/169) investigating the immunological landscape of GBM or using immunotherapy as the primary treatment modality. Keyword analysis demonstrated a thematic shift toward tumor biology and immune-based therapies over the study period, highlighting emerging trends in GBM research. CONCLUSION: Departments of neurosurgery have established themselves as key drivers in GBM research. The prominence of tumor biology and immunotherapy reflect broader shifts in treatment approaches. Continued support for neurosurgical departments and targeted funding initiatives is essential for advancing GBM research, fostering innovation, and improving patient outcomes in this challenging field.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tazhibi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: