Bibliometric analysis maps macrophages in renal fibrosis, indicating key trends and research priorities.
Objective: To conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of global research trends on the role of macrophages in renal fibrosis from 2014 to 2025, identifying key contributors, thematic evolution, and emerging research frontiers. Methods: A total of 1,823 relevant publications were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. Bibliometric analyses were performed using CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Bibliometrix to examine publication outputs, country/institution contributions, journal influence, author productivity, co-citation networks, and keyword co-occurrence patterns. Results: Annual publications showed a consistent upward trend, with China being the most productive country (accounting for 33.45% of the overall publications), followed by the United States. Monash University and The Chinese University of Hong Kong have the highest number of citations per article. Frontiers in Immunology was the most prolific journal, while Kidney International had the highest citation impact. Huiyao Lan, Michael G Shlipak, and David J Nikolic-Paterson demonstrated outstanding contributions in publication output, H-index, and citation impact. Keyword analysis identified “macrophage polarization”, “CKD”, and “diagnosis” as current research hotspots. Co-citation clustering revealed evolving focus areas including diabetic nephropathy, macrophage–myofibroblast transition, and unilateral ureteral obstruction models. Conclusion: This study provides a comprehensive mapping of the research landscape on macrophages in renal fibrosis, demonstrating a clear shift from mechanistic studies toward translational research focusing on macrophage polarization and diagnostic applications. The findings highlight China’s dominant contribution and underscore emerging priorities that may guide future therapeutic innovation in renal fibrosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: