
==== Front
Int J Surg
Int J Surg
JS9
International Journal of Surgery (London, England)
1743-9191
1743-9159
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Hagerstown, MD

38768471
IJS-D-24-01860
10.1097/JS9.0000000000001653
00080
3
Correspondence
A commentary on ‘A bibliometric analysis of gastric cancer liver metastases: advances in mechanisms of occurrence and treatment options’
Shi Yanlong MD vvshiyanlong@qq.com

Wang Yizhu MD 18810825818@163.com

Niu Kaiyi MD kyniu515@163.com

Zhang Yewei PhD zhangyewei@njmu.edu.cn
*
Hepatopancreatobiliary Center, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, People’s Republic of China
* Corresponding author. Address: No. 121, Jiangjiayuan, Nanjing 210003, Jiangsu Province, People’s Republic of China. Tel.: +86 155 5519 0939. E-mail: zhangyewei@njmu.edu.cn (Y. Zhang).
9 2024
20 5 2024
110 9 58975898
6 5 2024
8 5 2024
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

OPEN-ACCESSTRUE
==== Body
pmc Dear Editor,

We read with great interest the article by Wang et al. published in the International Journal of Surgery 1. This study, for the first time, investigated current research trends and hotspots in the field of gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM) using bibliometric analysis. It is noteworthy that these findings will serve as a valuable reference for the development of GCLM in basic and clinical research. We cordially congratulate the authors for their distinguished efforts and contributions to this field. Herein, we would like to express several constructive issues to enhance this subject.

The authors referred in a section of Database and search strategy that ‘We sourced all publications for our study from the Web of Science Core Collection’. As we know, an authoritative, high-impact academic database, the Web of Science Core Collection (WSCC), mainly includes six sub-libraries, as follows: Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCIE), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Current Chemical Reactions (CCR-EXPANDED), and Index Chemicus (IC). Although WSCC possesses an unparalleled citation retrieval pattern, bibliometrics analysis results may result in confounding and bias based on different databases. For example, some promising journals in SCIE, SSCI, and AHCI come from ESCI, which provides a valuable complement to highly selective indexing2. Considering the scientific and rigorous character of bibliometric analysis, most scholars tend to choose SCIE database3. If possible, we recommend that authors conduct the SCIE database to verify the relevant results.

Moreover, the searched method used in this study was: TS= (((“stomach” OR “gastric”) AND (“cancer” OR “tumor” OR “oncology” OR “neoplasm” OR “carcinoma”) AND (“livermetastasis” OR “livermetastases”)) OR ((“gastric cancer” OR “gastric carcinoma”) AND (“liver metastasis” OR “hepatic metastasis”)) OR (“gastric cancer liver metastasis”) OR (“Liver metastasis from gastric cancer”)). On the one hand, the authors only use the full name of the search terms, ignoring their abbreviations. This can make results missing and inaccurate, especially if bibliographic fields are recorded as “TS”. On the other hand, when designing search terms, the appropriate use of the search wildcard symbol “*” can make the search formula more concise and efficient4. Besides, the authors mentioned that ‘English-language articles and reviews were included in the manuscript’. For all we know, bibliometrics is a powerful evaluation method for systematic review. Articles are the only type of literature for further analysis, and reviews, meeting reports, letters, proceeding papers, editorial material, book chapters, etc. should be excluded in the study. To enhance the objectivity of results, it is extremely important to choose the proper literature types and exact descriptions. Therefore, the new strategy we used was “TS= (((“stomach” OR “gastric”) AND (“cancer” OR “tumor” OR “oncology” OR “neoplasm” OR “carcinoma”) AND (“liver metastas*” OR “hepatic metastas*”)) OR ((“gastric cancer” OR “gastric carcinoma”) AND (“liver metastas*” OR “hepatic metastas*”)) OR (“gastric cancer liver metastas*” OR GCLM) OR (“liver metastas* from gastric cancer” OR LMGC))” within the publication year with a limit of 2000 to 2022, then only choose the type of articles.

In the section on Analysis of keywords, the authors displayed a network visualization map based on high-frequency keywords, which identified the research directions and hotspots efficiently in gastric cancer liver metastasis. However, the authors neglect a vital process, that is, ‘information resources management’. We notice that there are many synonymous keywords in Figure 10C, D, such as carcinoma and cancer, liver metastases, and liver metastasis. These repetitive keywords may not only obscure the visualization of other clustering and citation bursts analysis but also confuse the reader. As a matter of fact, most investigators will wash and merge synonymous keywords, even if the procedure is cumbersome5. Thus, it is better for authors to manage keywords appropriately.

In short, we are sincerely grateful to Wang and colleagues for outlining a well-designed GCLM from a global perspective. To further enhance the scientific reference value of the research, we are convinced of the validity of the comments made in terms of methodology and results.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent

Not applicable.

Sources of funding

None.

Author contribution

Y.W. and Y.S.: searched literatures and wrote the first draft; K.N.: revised the final manuscript. All authors approved the last version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of interest disclosure

The authors declares no conflicts of interest.

Research registration unique identifying number (UIN)

Not applicable.

Guarantor

Yewei Zhang.

Data availability statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Provenance and peer review

Not applicable.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Yanlong Shi, Yizhu Wang, and Kaiyi Niu contributed equally to this work and shared the first authorship.

Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.

Published online 20 May 2024
==== Refs
References

1 Wang C Zhang Y Zhang Y . A bibliometric analysis of gastric cancer liver metastases: advances in mechanisms of occurrence and treatment options. Int J Surg (London, England) 2024;110 :2288–2299.
2 Han X Zhang J Chen SF . Mapping the current trends and hotspots of vascular cognitive impairment from 2000-2021: a bibliometric analysis. CNS Neurosci Ther 2023;29 :771–782.36415118
3 Li T Su W Wang Z . Characterization of research trends and prospects on hepatic echinococcosis over the past forty years: a bibliometric analysis. Int J Surg (London, England) 2024;Mar 11 . [Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.1097/js9.0000000000001319
4 Jiang D Mantas A Studier-Fischer A . Clinical research in renal transplantation: a bibliometric perspective on a half-century of innovation and progress. Transplantation 2024;108 :1189–1199.38196091
5 Wang JY Zhao WL Zhang Z . A journey of challenges and victories: a bibliometric worldview of nanomedicine since the 21st century. Adv Mater 2024;36 :e2308915.38229552
