Nanocellulose (NC) has gained increasing attention as a sustainable and multifunctional biomaterial for biomedical applications. This work presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of NC research in biomedicine, integrating 3267 publications (2004–2024) retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection and analyzed under a PRISMA-adapted protocol using VOSviewer. The workflow methodology comprised four stages: identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Then, a rigorous data refinement through synonym unification and keyword harmonization was carried out. Both performance analysis and science mapping were conducted to quantify research output and visualize thematic structures, collaboration patterns, and citation networks. The temporal evolution revealed three distinct phases: an emerging phase (2004–2013) focused on fundamentals of NC production and biocompatibility; a consolidation phase (2014–2018) characterized by applications in scaffolds, wound healing, and drug-delivery; and an expansion phase (2019–2024) marked by diversification into 3D bioprinting, hybrid composites, and regenerative scaffolds. Three major research fronts were identified: i) regenerative scaffolds and bioprinting, dominated by NC–alginate and RGD-functionalized hydrogels; ii) nanomaterial development, emphasizing surface oxidation, carbodiimide coupling, and polymer hybridization; and iii) clinical applications, led by bacterial cellulose in antibacterial wound dressings and drug-release systems. The shift from materials-oriented studies toward translational research highlights both scientific maturity and remaining clinical gaps. Emerging trends such as sustainable BC production, stimuli-responsive hydrogels, and biosensing applications align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 3 and 12, positioning NC as a scalable and eco-efficient platform for next-generation biomedical technologies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lopez-Monte et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: