Bibliometric review analyzes blockchain integration in healthcare, highlighting emerging trends globally.
BACKGROUND: The integration of blockchain technology in healthcare has garnered significant global interest, showing promising potential for revolutionizing this vital sector. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of blockchain-related publications in healthcare, aiming to offer an in-depth understanding of the field and forecast emerging trends. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We employed the Web of Science Core Collection as our primary database for sourcing relevant literature. The data was meticulously analyzed using advanced tools such as VOSviewer 1.6.9, Bibliometrix 3.1.4, and CiteSpace 5.7.R2. RESULTS: Our bibliometric analysis identified 218 scholarly articles on blockchain in healthcare since its first emergence in 2016. The research involved 683 institutions across 55 countries, with China and the United States leading in research output (> 90 publications each). The University of California, San Diego demonstrated the highest institutional productivity (n = 13). While the Journal of Medical Internet Research led in publication volume (39), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Access emerged as the most co-cited journal (654 citations). Thematic analysis revealed 6 major research clusters: personal health record systems, coranavirus disease 2019 response applications, remote healthcare services, security and privacy frameworks, implementation schemes and models, and smart contract development. CONCLUSIONS: The research landscape of blockchain in healthcare demonstrates rapid growth and increasing international collaboration. Current research frontiers focus on developing secure and privacy-preserving frameworks, particularly in health data management and pandemic response solutions, indicating promising directions for future healthcare transformation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: