4.3 Review

Global scientific trends on exosome research during 2007-2016: a bibliometric analysis

Journal

ONCOTARGET
Volume 8, Issue 29, Pages 48460-48470

Publisher

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.17223

Keywords

bibliometric; citation; H-index; exosome; VOSviewer

Funding

  1. Foundation of Changhai Hospital [CH201717]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81601953, 81670741]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Exosomes are small vesicles of endosomal origin, and they can be used for the diagnosis and the treatment. However, limited data were for the evaluation of the trend of exosome researches. This study aims to investigate the trend of exosome researches and compare the contribution of research from different regions, organizations and authors. Methods: Exosome related publications from 2007 to 2016 were retrieved from the Web of Science database. Excel, GraphPad Prism 5 and VOSviewer software were used to analyze the research trend. Results: A total of 1852 papers were identified and were cited 62967 times. The United States accounted for 38.8% of the articles, 42.0% of the citations, and the highest H-index (76). China ranked the second in the number of articles, but the sixth in citation frequency (4337) and the fourth in H-index (36). The journals, PLoS ONE and J Biol Chem had the highest number of publications. The author, Gabrielsson S., has published the most papers in this field (22). The keyword ribonucleic acid was mentioned the most at 746 times, and the words, stem cell, drug resistance and monocyte cell factor were the latest hotspots appeared around 2015. Conclusion: Literature growth related to exosome is expanding rapidly. The quality of the articles from China still requires improvement. Recent studies focus on the relationship with tumor, and stem cell, drug resistance and michigan cancer foundation-7 may be the newest topics that should be closely followed in exosome research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available