Bibliometric analysis reveals growing focus on wound healing and tissue engineering among 2553 publications, indicating key research trends in biomaterials.
Aim: To provide a comprehensive overview and highlight the evolving trends in biomaterial research for injury treatment. Methods: We conducted a literature search of the Web of Science Core Collection using keywords related to biomaterial and injury. The search retrieved records containing author names, titles, sources, abstracts, keywords, addresses, cited references, usage, and funding information. CiteSpace 6.3.R1 was used to construct the countries, authors, and institutions’ cooperation networks; authors and journals’ co-citation networks; and keyword co-occurrence networks. Microsoft Office Excel was used to visualize the annual publication counts and analyze the publication volume, citation frequency, and h-index of countries, authors, and journals, leveraging the data generated from the internal functions of the Web of Science. Results: The bibliometric analysis encompassed 2553 publications, with a steady increase in the number of publications between 2014 and 2024. The People’s Republic of China, the USA, and India were the leading contributing countries to this field, and prolific authors included Li Yan, Dai Jianwu, and Chang Jiang. Journals such as Acta Biomaterialia, Biomaterials, and International Journal of Biological Macromolecules frequently publish articles in this field. Analyses of research hotspots, including keyword co-occurrence, keyword burst detection, and literature co-citation, revealed that research directions such as “wound healing,” “tissue engineering,” “wound dressing,” “spinal cord injury,” and “injectable hydrogel” are currently focal points and show promise for further exploration. Conclusion: This bibliometric study systematically summarized the development trends in biomaterial research for injury treatment, particularly highlighting research hotspots, thus offering guidance for future studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: