"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Margaret Mead
Original article
peer-reviewed

The 100 Most Influential Papers and Recent Trends in the Field of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours: A Bibliometric Analysis



Abstract

Background

Bibliometric analysis is a statistical tool used to examine the exponential growth in medical research. Many analogous analyses have been conducted, but none existed for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Hence, we conducted a citation analysis of the hundred most cited and recently published articles on this topic.

Methods

Scopus was chosen as the primary database, through which the top 100 and recent publications were ranked according to the citation count and were then analysed.

Results

The 100 most cited articles were published between 1992 and 2013, among which the greatest number of articles were published in the years 2002 (n = 15) and 2006 (n = 11). Amidst the 24 countries from which the articles originated, the United States of America (n = 76) topped the list. The Journal of Clinical Oncology (n = 15) and the American Journal of Clinical Pathology (n = 10) contributed majority of the top articles. Harvard Medical School alone produced 44 of the top 100. Articles from 2013 to date showed the same trend as that of top 100 articles regarding origin and institutions.

Conclusion

Basic science and genetics of GISTs are established, and new drugs are being studied for medicinal therapy. Surgical management and diagnostics of these tumors, however, are yet to be studied as extensively.

Introduction

Explosive growth in the medical literature has contributed to massive leaps within evidence-based medicine, which combines clinical expertise of a physician with current scientific research to provide adequate patient care [1,2].

All this growth in the academic arena requires a method by which researchers can efficiently track the most impactful advances and identify the pressing challenges. Bibliometric analysis, a statistical tool by which frequency and trends of citations of the published literature undergo quantitative scrutiny, can fulfil this objective [3,4]. Medical research is historically a competitive field and bibliometrics can serve as a guide to examine research performance from a global perspective, pinpointing successful advances and breakthroughs of individual countries, researchers, and journals [5]. Several such analyses have been conducted for various topics, such as breast cancer [6], orthopaedic surgery [7], epilepsy [8], thrombolytic therapy [9], and valvular heart diseases [10]. Within oncology, however, our thorough search indicated that there has been no bibliometric analysis of the literature on gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs).

Although infrequent, GISTs are the most common mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal tract [11], with an incidence at 10–15 per million per year [12]. Introduced as a diagnostic term in 1983 [13], GISTs have emerged from being poorly defined, treatment-resistant tumors to treatable tumor entities used as a paradigmatic cancer model for multidisciplinary, targeted therapy directed against a driver oncogene [14-16]. Citation Classics [17] on GISTs are also recognized in our article, providing an insight into the specific aspects the scientific community appears to be focusing on, the existing gaps and possible directions for future global research [8].

The present bibliometric analysis accumulates all relevant data represented by the 100 most cited articles on GIST. This work will enable researchers to acquire the latest information about the work being done in this arena, while identifying future challenges to focus on.

Materials & Methods

A citation search was conducted to identify the topmost 100 cited articles in the available literature, as well as top 50 articles from 2013 to the current date, concerning gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Coequal to other researchers [9,10], we chose Elsevier’s Scopus online database (http://www.scopus.com) for our bibliometric analysis, as it provides 20% more coverage than Web of Science with more accurate citation counts than Google Scholar [18]. However, full articles were accessed from PubMed, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and Science Direct.

The keywords ‘Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GIST)’, ‘Gastrointestinal Pacemaker Cell Tumors (GIPACT)’ [19], and ‘Gastrointestinal Sub-epithelial Tumors’ were obtained from Medical Subject Headings (MESH) of PubMed and sections (C49.A0-5) and (C49.A9) of the International Classification of Diseases 10 (ICD-10). All electronic database searches were performed on August 22 and 23, 2017. Keywords were searched in ‘article titles’, ‘abstracts’, and ‘keywords’. Relevant articles were retrieved and sorted by the option of ‘Cited by’, which gave us the articles arranged in descending order of their number of citations. No filters of language, time, human studies, subject area, territory, or affiliations were used. Abstracts and full texts of the articles were read from the sorted list and irrelevant ones were removed. GISTs are soft tissue tumors with mesenchymal origin [20], but studies regarding soft tissue tumors that did not primarily discuss GISTs were excluded.

All article types excluding those requiring manual searching, telephone access, guidelines, and non-PubMed indexed articles, were included. The dataset was further evaluated, examining title, first and senior author, institution, department of the first author, topic, source, year of publication, and country of origin. In contrast with other researchers [9,10], we used CiteScore [21], Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), to rank our journals. Some articles were cited more frequently than others due to differences in time since publication. We eliminated this error by determining citation index for each article.

Citation analysis of the articles extracted was conducted both on Scopus and by manual screening of the articles. They were classified into three broad categories: Basic Sciences, Therapeutic, and Diagnostic. Tables and charts were created using Microsoft Excel 2016. IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, New York) was used to apply the Pearson product moment correlation co-efficient to evaluate the relationship between citation times, CiteScore and citation density. The Mann-Whitney U test was applied to determine whether there was any significant difference in citations of review and original articles. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate any significant difference between subject area and year, and also between distributions of citations among the subject area. p-value < 0.05 was considered significant in all cases.

Results

Top 100 article trends

(a) Citation Count, Citations per Year and Citation Trend

The top 100 articles were published between 1992 and 2013 (see Appendix A). Most were original articles (n = 79), while others comprised review articles (n = 19), conference papers (n = 1), and letters to the editor (n = 1). The citations of those articles summed up to 59,911, ranging from 260 to 3,076, with a median of 396 and a mean of 599.11 (interquartile range 281). Approximately 7% were self-cited and 4% were book citations, reducing the original citations to 53,520. Citation density (citations per year) ranged from 12.12 to 203.13, with a median of 32.18 and a mean of 47.29 (interquartile range 38.02). A significant positive correlation was found between citation and citation density (r = 0.883) and citation and CiteScore (r = 0.223) but there was no significant correlation between citation and year of publication. Figure 1 shows the trend of total citations by year.

 

(b) Origins, Institutions, and Authorships

The top 100 articles were produced by 24 different countries, with almost half (n = 44) of the articles having contributions from more than one country. The USA (n = 76), Finland (n = 15), and Belgium (n = 12) were the top contributors (Figure 2).

 

In addition, 202 different institutions were associated with the top 100 articles. Harvard Medical School (n = 44) and University of Helsinki (n = 29) alone contributed to 73% of our top 100 articles on GISTs. Table 1 lists the top 10 institutions with eight or more articles among the top 100.

Institutions            Number of Documents
Harvard Medical School 44
University of Helsinki  29
Armed Forces Institution of Pathology 18
Oregon Health and Science University 14
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center 10
Novartis International AG 9
Royal Marsden Hospital, London 8
Erasmus University Medical Center 8
VA Medical Center 8
KU Leuven–University Hospital Leuven 8
 

A broad range of 528 authors contributed to the top 100 articles. Each paper had a median of eight authors. The number of authors per article ranged from 1 to 59. Authors with more than 10 articles in the list are shown in Table 2.

Author Number of Articles Author Position Author Affiliations H Index Primary Topic of Interest Years Highest Citation
First Last Others Corresponding
Demetri, GD 21 5 5 11 2 Dana-Farber Cancer Institution, Boston, United States 91 Medicinal Therapy and Genetics 2000-2013 3,050
Heinrich, MC 20 7 4 8 9 Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, United States 73 Medicinal Therapy and Genetics 2002-2011 3,050
Miettinen, M 19 14 4 1 14 National Cancer Institution, Laboratory of Pathology, Bethesda, United States 96 Pathology and Genetics 1995-2006 2,279
Fletcher, CDM 18 1 2 15 1 Brigham and Women's Hospital, Department of Pathology, Boston, United States 111 Medicinal Therapy and Genetics 2000-2008 3,050
Corless, CL 18 4 1 13 1 Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, United States 79 Medicinal Therapy and Genetics 2002-2011 3,050
Fletcher, JA 15 0 7 8 2 Brigham and Women's Hospital, Department of Pathology, Boston, United States 91 Medicinal Therapy and Genetics 2000-2011 3,050
Lasota, J 14 2 11 1 0 National Cancer Institution, Laboratory of Pathology, Bethesda, United States 56 Pathology 1999-2006 2,279
Joensuu, H 12 5 2 5 5 Helsinki University Central Hospital, Department of Oncology, Helsinki, Finland 87 Medicinal Therapy and Genetics 2001-2013 3,050
Von Mehren, M 12 0 0 12 0 Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, United States 46 Medicinal Therapy 2002-2013 3,050
Sarlomo-Rikala, M 11 1 1 9 0 Helsingin Yliopisto, Department of Pathology, Helsinki, Finland 39 Pathology 1998-2012 1,603
Sobin, LHH 11 0 2 9 0 National Cancer Institution, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Bethesda, United States 78 Pathology 1999-2016 2,279
 

(c) Journals

The top 100 articles were published in 40 journals, with half of the articles published in six journals. Table 3 shows these six journals, various analytical parameters, and their subject areas.

Journal Name          CiteScore Highest CiteScore Percentile CiteScore Rank %Cited  SNIP SJR Subject Area Number of Articles Total Citations
Journal Of Clinical Oncology 10.11 98 6/321 71 4.89 8.883 Oncology 15 8,548
American Journal Of Surgical Pathology 5.05 99 2/372 87 2.36 2.371 Surgery 10 4,145
Lancet 6.93 99 20/2,156 43 13.7 12.47 Medicine 7 5,713
European Journal Of Cancer 6.1 95 15/321 87 2.16 3.011 Oncology 7 2,659
American Journal Of Pathology 4.1 94 11/182 84 1.19 2.209 Medicine 6 3,305
Human Pathology 2.84 88 21/182 78 1.13 1.302 Medicine 6 4,713
 

(d) Subject Area and Topics

The top 100 GIST articles fell within three major subject areas: basic science, therapeutic, and diagnostic. More than half (n = 58) examined basic GIST science, while the remainder contributed to therapeutic (n = 40) and diagnostic (n = 10) knowledge about GIST. These major subject areas were further classified according to subtopics, as shown in Table 4. 7% of the articles had overlap between subject areas.

Major Topics Sub-topic *Number of Articles
Basic Sciences Genetic 24
Pathology 20
Prognosis 13
Epidemiology 1
Therapeutic Medical 37
Surgical 2
Both 1
Diagnostic Radiological 7
Others 2
 

A significant difference was found between the year of publication of articles and categories of subject areas (p = 0.00) but the distribution of citations was the same across subject area categories (p = 0.708). Figure 3 shows the trend of articles in different subject areas over time. Few articles imparting therapeutic or diagnostic knowledge about GIST were published before the year 2000. Most of the work in all three subject areas was performed from 2000-2010. Figure 4 displays the number of citations per subject area over time. As shown, the most citations for basic science articles were from 1992-2000. From 2000 on, citation counts were homogenous for all three subject areas.

 
 

Overall and to date trends

Figure 5 shows the overall trend of GIST articles from 1947 to date, showing 2012 (n = 653) as the year in which most of the work was done on GISTs, followed by 2015 (n = 630). The analysis of top 50 cited articles from each year ranging from 2013 till now showed that the most contributing countries were the USA and Italy with 54.45% and 21.8% articles, respectively. Harvard Medical School was again on the top of the list with 40.09% articles. However, basic sciences, therapeutic and diagnostic studies constitute 46.03%, 42.07% and 11.88% of past five year’s top-cited articles, respectively. Demetri, GD (n = 13), Bauer, S (n = 11) and Blay, JY (n = 11) were the authors who worked eminently on the topic of GISTs in past five years.

 

Discussion

The oldest article on GISTs, “Gant and his operations”, was published in 1947 and was not accessible through any online database. The second oldest relevant research paper accessible via Web of Knowledge, “Solitary solid stromal gastrointestinal tumors in von Recklinghausen's disease with minimal smooth muscle differentiation”, was published in 1984 and had 82 citations to date. Both these pioneer articles on GISTs did not make a place in the top 100 articles, hence indicating that the quality of the work plays a greater role in citation number than does the number of years the article has been a part of the literature.

Top 100 article citations and trends

(a) Citation Count, Citations per Year and Citation Trend

Among the top 100 articles, the eighty most frequently cited articles were published from 2000-2008. Throughout this nine-year span, more than five articles of top 100 list were published per year. The most-often cited article in the list was published in 1998, while the oldest of the top 100 articles cited was published in 1992. In accordance with previous studies [10], our graph of the total article citations over time (Figure 1) showed two peaks, the highest in 2002 (n = 15) and the second-highest in 2006 (n = 11). After 2006, a gradual decrease in citations occurred, followed by a rapid decrease in 2008. Five articles that were published after 2008 made to the top 100 list. This finding strengthens the idea that some topics undergo intense study at a certain time during which extensive research is performed, and after which the topic ceases to be of broad and current interest [22]. There was no significant difference between the citations of original research articles and review articles (p = 0.310), contradicting the belief that review articles are more often cited [10]. Interestingly, the second article on the list had the highest citation density.

(b) Countries of Origin, Institutions and Authors

A total of 76 of the top 100 articles came from the USA (Figure 2). Campbell explains this major contribution from the USA by stating that reviewers and authors from the USA show bias towards local papers [23]. Finland produced the second-highest number of quality papers (n = 13), followed by Belgium and Switzerland (both, n = 11). Only one paper from China was included in the top 100, despite GIST being most prevalent in that region [12].

Total 40 institutions contributed to our top 100 articles, all with at least two articles. Table 1 shows the top 10 institutions, four of which belong to the USA. A total of 55 of the extracted articles had multi-institutional origins. Of these, 25 papers had multinational origins, suggesting that international collaborations produce high-quality output that greatly benefits the scientific community [10].

None of the authors of the first article of top 100 articles were in the list of top 11 authors extracted, whereas seven authors of the second most-cited articles were in that list (Table 2). Each of the top 11 authors contributed to at least 11 articles. Fletcher, CDM had the highest H-index, but he ranked fourth in our list, as he had 18 articles among the top 100. Authors with a high H-index not only have a greater chance of having their work accepted, but are also more likely to get promotions and become reviewers [24].

(c) Journals

As previously mentioned, the top 100 articles were published in 40 journals. A total of 12 were oncology journals (41% of articles) and 16 were medicine journals (36% of articles). Among the oncology-based journals, Cancer Cell had the highest CiteScore of 16.19, followed by Nature Reviews Cancer, with a CiteScore of 15.79, but Journal of Clinical Oncology (n = 15) and The European Journal of Cancer (n = 7) has the most articles published in them (Table 3). Both the top CiteScore journals had only one article each in the top 100. Among the medicine-based journals, The New England Journal of Medicine had the highest CiteScore of 12.82 followed by the Lancet. The most cited article of the top 100 list was published in Science, a multidisciplinary journal with a CiteScore of 14.39. Only two articles published in Science appeared in the top 100 list. Nature Genetics had the highest CiteScore (20.83) overall, but only one article of top 100 was published in it. We observed a weak positive correlation of CiteScore with citation (r = 0.233).

According to the Bradford law these 28 journals, oncology and medicine-based summed up, may be considered our core journals [25]. This trend indicates that high-quality articles are published in field-specific journals, as also reported by other bibliometric analysis [18]. We used multiple analytical parameters to rank our journals, including CiteScore, SJR, and SNIP to reduce bias [26]. CiteScore is a metric similar to a journal’s Impact Factor that gives us a comprehensive view of the journal’s effect on the Scientific Community.

(d) Subject Areas

A total of 58 of the top 100 articles concerned basic sciences. Under the sphere of the basic sciences, 20 articles covered the pathological, histochemical, and immunological aspects of GISTs. Twenty-three articles discussed genetics, while 12 studied disease prognosis and three focused on epidemiology. Basic sciences publications were highest in 2000 (n = 7), while therapeutic publications were highest in 2002 (n = 7; Figure 3). However, papers from the basic sciences field that were most often cited were published in 1998 and there were more than 5,000 citations for both of these fields in these years as shown in Figure 4.

Thirty-four therapeutic articles focused on the medical treatment of GISTs with imatinib, sunitinib, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or other chemotherapeutic drugs. The articles examined treatment efficacy, mechanisms of action, associations, reactions, adverse effects, prognosis, and mechanisms of resistance. The remaining six articles examined surgical management or a combination of surgical and medicinal treatment. The most-cited articles from the therapeutic field were published in 2000. Only 10 of the top 100 articles pertained to the field of diagnostics. Most work imparting therapeutic or diagnostic information was published between 2000 and 2010; none was published before 2000 (Figure 3). Several articles targeted both a genetic basis and medical therapy for GISTs; hence, we categorized these articles as both therapeutic and diagnostic. Similarly, prognosis and surgical management were discussed simultaneously in some articles.

Overall and to date trends

Our extensive recent analysis showed us that in contrast to other topics that are ‘hot’ in some era and got most of the work done on them in a specific period of time  [22], GISTs was a progressive topic. Despite the fact that most cited articles on GISTs were from the last decade, the current decade is the one in which most of the work has been conducted (Figure 5). Moreover, contrary to the top 100 articles on GISTs, a considerable number of the articles published from 2013 to date were regarding treatment and diagnostics (Figure 6). Under the umbrella of therapeutic articles, compared to top 100 articles, the work on surgical management has increased considerably especially on the comparison of laparoscopic procedures to open gastric resection (Figure 7). We also noticed that researchers have now been trying new medicinal therapies for GISTs, like olaratumab, regorafenib and other recent drugs, in addition to previous ones like sunitinib and imatinib. Although work on diagnostics of GISTs has increased over time and most studied topics were radiographic and needle aspiration techniques, it is an understudied area warranting further work. Along with these, basic sciences were also kept under focus by scientists; the subgroup of genetics, especially, has been studied vigorously in past five years. A number of recent studies were extensive enough to add literature under the umbrella of multiple subjects, the majority of which contributed to the arena of genetics and medicinal therapy. Moreover, in accordance with the top 100 articles, the latest top cited articles were also mostly contributed by the USA and Harvard Medical School.

 
 

Although efforts were made to eliminate any bias, certain limitations must be considered. Firstly, a major limitation was possible citation bias, including in-house citations, negative citations and incomplete citations. Secondly, only one database was used to extract the list which may have resulted in overlooking of some articles that were not recognized by Scopus. Scopus has been reported to miss older citations, which results in the omission of researches conducted and published prior to 1980 [27,28]. Our list may have missed some Citation Classics, it can be explained as ‘obliteration by incorporation’ [17], which in simple terms states that the content of some classic articles has become such common knowledge that they no longer require citation.

Conclusions

A bibliometric analysis on GIST helped in identifying it as an escalating topic of discussion. The last two decades have shown a significant increase in the relevant GIST studies in comparison to the scarce and wide-spread publications in the entire twentieth century. Citation count of the articles remained uninfluenced by the journal’s Citescore and the article type. Areas pertaining to basic sciences and genetics have shown great progress whereas surgical management and advances in diagnostic aspects of GIST have yet to reach the same level of success.

The prevalence of GIST is highest in China, regardless of which, the country and institution with the highest number of citation contribution are the USA and Harvard Medical College, respectively. Furthermore, our analysis suggests that greater amount of time and attention towards research focusing on advances in diagnostic investigations, surgical treatment, and target therapy is required in order to improve the overall prognosis of the disease.


References

  1. Regehr G: Trends in medical education research. Acad Med. 2004, 79:939-947.
  2. Sackett DL: Evidence-based medicine. Semin Perinatol. 1997, 21:3-5. 10.1016/S0146-0005(97)80013-4
  3. Benton DC: Using bibliometrics to support revalidation requirements. Nurs Stand. 2017, 32:44-51. 10.7748/ns.2017.e10589
  4. Moed HF: The impact-factors debate: the ISI's uses and limits. Nature. 2002, 415:731-732. 10.1038/415731a
  5. Pendlebury DA: White paper using bibliometrics: a guide to evaluating research performance with citation data. Thomson Reuters. 2010,
  6. Glynn RW, Scutaru C, Kerin MJ, Sweeny KJ: Breast cancer research output, 1945-2008: a bibliometric and density-equalizing analysis. Breast Cancer Res. 2010, 12:108. 10.1186/bcr2795
  7. Kelly J, Glynn R, O'Briain D, Felle P, McCabe JP: The 100 classic papers of orthopaedic surgery: a bibliometric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010, 92:1338-1343. 10.1302/0301-620X.92B10.24867
  8. Ibrahim GM, Carter Snead O, Rutka JT, Lozano AM: The most cited works in epilepsy: trends in the “citation classics”. Epilepsia. 2012, 53:765-770. 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2012.03455.x
  9. Siddiqi TJ, Usman MS, Khan MS, et al.: The 100 most influential papers in the field of thrombolytic therapy: a bibliometric analysis. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2017, 17:319-333. 10.1007/s40256-017-0227-2
  10. Usman MS, Siddiqi TJ, Khan MS, Fatima K, Butler J, Manning WJ, Khosa F: A scientific analysis of the 100 citation classics of valvular heart disease. Am J Cardiol. 2017, 120:1440-1449. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.07.035
  11. Rubin BP, Heinrich MC, Corless CL: Gastrointestinal stromal tumour. Lancet. 2007, 369:1731-1741. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60780-6
  12. Søreide K, Sandvik OM, Søreide JA, Giljasa V, Jureckova A, Bulusu VR: Global epidemiology of gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST): a systematic review of population-based cohort studies. Cancer Epidemiol. 2016, 40:39-46. 10.1016/j.canep.2015.10.031
  13. DeVita VT, Lawrence TS, Rosenberg SA: DeVita, Hellman, and Rosenberg's Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology. Wolters Kluwer, Philadelphia; 2008.
  14. Kingham TP, DeMatteo RP: Multidisciplinary treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Surg Clin North Am. 2009, 89:217-233. 10.1016/j.suc.2008.10.003
  15. Chaudhry UI, DeMatteo RP: Management of resectable gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2009, 23:79-96. 10.1016/j.hoc.2009.01.001
  16. Gold JS, DeMatteo RP: Neoadjuvant therapy for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST): racing against resistance. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007, 14:1247-1248. 10.1245/s10434-006-9291-6
  17. Garfield E: 100 citation classics from the Journal of the American Medical Association. Jama. 1987, 257:52-59. 10.1001/jama.1987.03390010056028
  18. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Paappas G: Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008, 22:338-342. 10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
  19. Kindblom LG, Remotti HE, Aldenborg F, Meis-Kindblom JM: Gastrointestinal pacemaker cell tumor (GIPACT): gastrointestinal stromal tumors show phenotypic characteristics of the interstitial cells of Cajal. Am J Pathol. 1998, 152:1259-1269.
  20. Rubin BP: Recent progress in the classification of soft tissue tumors: role of genetics and clinical implications. Curr Opin Oncol. 2001, 13:256-260.
  21. Zijlstra H, McCullough R: CiteScore: a new metric to help you track journal performance and make decisions. Elsevier. 2016, https://www.elsevier.com/editors-update/story/journal-metrics/citescore-a-new-metric-to-help-you-choose-the-right-journal.
  22. Paladugu R, Schein M, Gardezi S, Wise L: One hundred citation classics in general surgical journals. World J Surg. 2002, 26:1099-1105. 10.1007/s00268-002-6376-7
  23. Campbell FM: National bias a comparison of citation practices by health professionals. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1990, 78:376-382.
  24. Stossel TP: Volume: papers and academic promotion. Ann Intern Med. 1987, 106:146-149. 10.7326/0003-4819-106-1-146
  25. Nash-Stewart CE: Does Bradford’s law of scattering predict the size of the literature in cochrane reviews?. J Med Libr Assoc. 2012, 100:135-138. 10.3163/1536-5050.100.2.013
  26. La Torre G, Sciarra I, Chiappetta M, Monteduro A: New bibliometric indicators for the scientific literature: an evolving panorama. (Article in Italian). Clin Ter. 2017, 168:65-71. 10.7417/CT.2017.1985
  27. Brandt JS, Downing AC, Howard DL, Kofinas JD, Chasen ST: Citation classics in obstetrics and gynecology: the 100 most frequently cited journal articles in the last 50 years. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010, 203:355e1-355e7. 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.07.025
  28. Bakkalbasi N, Bauer K, Glover J, Wang L: Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomed Digit Libr. 2006, 3:7. 10.1186/1742-5581-3-7

Appendices

Appendix A

Rank Article Total Citation Citation Density Most Cited in (year)
1 Hirota S, Isozaki K, Moriyama Y, et al.: Gain-of-function mutations of c-kit in human gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Science 1998, 279:577-580. 3,076 161.895 2006
2 Demetri GD, Von Mehren M, Blanke CD, et al.: Efficacy and safety of imatinib mesylate in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors. N Engl J Med 2002, 347:472-480. 3,047 203.133 2006
3 Fletcher CD, Berman JJ, Corless C, et al.: Diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A consensus approach. Hum Pathol 2002, 33:459-465. 2,278 151.867 2009
4 DeMatteo RP, Lewis JJ, Leung D, et al.: Two hundred gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Recurrence patterns and prognostic factors for survival. Ann Surg 2000, 231:251. 1,746 102.706 2006
5 Joensuu H, Roberts PJ, Sarlomo-Rikala M, et al.: Effect of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sti571 in a patient with a metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor. N Engl J Med 2001, 344:1052-1056. 1,601 100.663 2003
6 Heinrich MC, Corless CL, Demetri GD, et al.: Kinase mutations and imatinib response in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor. J Clin Oncol 2003, 21:4342-4349. 1,599 114.214 2006
7 Demetri GD, van Oosterom AT, Garrett CR, et al.: Efficacy and safety of sunitinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour after failure of imatinib: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006, 368:1329-1338. 1,571 142.818 2009
8 Heinrich MC, Corless CL, Duensing A, et al.: Pdgfra activating mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Science 2003, 299:708-710. 1,561 111.5 2010
9 Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, et al.: From recist to percist: Evolving considerations for pet response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 2009, 50:122S-150S. 1,340 167.5 2015
10 Miettinen M, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors-definition, clinical, histological, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic features and differential diagnosis. Virchows Arch 2001, 438:1-12. 1,265 79.063 2005
11 Kindblom L-G, Remotti HE, Aldenborg F, et al.: Gastrointestinal pacemaker cell tumor (gipact): Gastrointestinal stromal tumors show phenotypic characteristics of the interstitial cells of cajal. Am J Pathol 1998, 152:1259. 1,262 66.421 2002
12 Verweij J, Casali PG, Zalcberg J, et al.: Progression-free survival in gastrointestinal stromal tumours with high-dose imatinib: Randomised trial. Lancet 2004, 364:1127-1134. 1,146 88.154 2008
13 van Oosterom AT, Judson I, Verweij J, et al.: Safety and efficacy of imatinib (sti571) in metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours: A phase i study. Lancet 2001, 358:1421-1423. 1,109 69.313 2003
14 Miettinen M, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Pathology and prognosis at different sites. Semin Diagn Pathol 2006, 23:70-83. 848 94.222 2015
15 Corless CL, Fletcher JA, Heinrich MC. Biology of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Clin Oncol 2004, 22:3813-3825. 834 64.154 2008
16 Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC, et al.: Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: Proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25:1753-1759. 814 81.4 2014
17 Miettinen M, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Review on morphology, molecular pathology, prognosis, and differential diagnosis. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006, 130:1466-1478. 787 71.546 2010
18 Miettinen M, Sobin LH, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the stomach: A clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic study of 1765 cases with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 2005, 29:52-68. 787 65.583 2009
19 Rubin BP, Singer S, Tsao C, et al.: Kit activation is a ubiquitous feature of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Cancer Res 2001, 61:8118-8121. 781 48.813 2003
20 Jain RK, Duda DG, Clark JW, et al.: Lessons from phase iii clinical trials on anti-vegf therapy for cancer. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2006, 3:24-40. 764 69.455 2007
21 Nilsson B, Bümming P, Meis‐Kindblom JM, et al.: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: The incidence, prevalence, clinical course, and prognostication in the preimatinib mesylate era. Cancer 2005, 103:821-829. 754 62.833 2015
22 DeMatteo RP, Ballman KV, Antonescu CR, et al.: Adjuvant imatinib mesylate after resection of localised, primary gastrointestinal stromal tumour: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2009, 373:1097-1104. 738 123 2012
23 Miettinen M, Sarlomo-Rikala M, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Recent advances in understanding of their biology. Hum Pathol 1999, 30:1213-1220. 665 36.944 2003
24 Sarlomo-Rikala M, Kovatich AJ, Barusevicius A, et al.: CD117: A sensitive marker for gastrointestinal stromal tumors that is more specific than CD34. Mod Pathol 1998,11:728-734. 641 33.737 2002
25 Chow LQ, Eckhardt SG. Sunitinib: From rational design to clinical efficacy. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25:884-896. 614 61.4 2012
26 Blanke CD, Rankin C, Demetri GD, et al.: Phase iii randomized, intergroup trial assessing imatinib mesylate at two dose levels in patients with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors expressing the kit receptor tyrosine kinase: S0033. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26:626-632. 605 67.222 2012
27 Debiec-Rychter M, Sciot R, Le Cesne A, et al.: Kit mutations and dose selection for imatinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours. Eur J Cancer 2006, 42:1093-1103. 594 54 2012
28 Blanke CD, Demetri GD, Von Mehren M, et al.: Long-term results from a randomized phase ii trial of standard-versus higher-dose imatinib mesylate for patients with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors expressing kit. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26:620-625. 564 62.667 2012
29 Tuveson DA, Willis NA, Jacks T, et al.: Sti571 inactivation of the gastrointestinal stromal tumor c-kit oncoprotein: Biological and clinical implications. Oncogene 2001, 20:5054. 533 33.313 2003
30 Lux ML, Rubin BP, Biase TL, et al.: Kit extracellular and kinase domain mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Am J Pathol 2000, 156:791-795. 525 30.882 2003
31 Heinrich MC, Blanke CD, Druker BJ, Corless CL: Inhibition of kit tyrosine kinase activity: A novel molecular approach to the treatment of kit-positive malignancies. J Clin Oncol 2002, 20:1692-1703. 518 34.533 2005
32 Heinrich MC, Corless CL, Blanke CD, et al.: Molecular correlates of imatinib resistance in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Clin Oncol 2006, 24:4764-4774. 517 47 2009
33 Antonescu CR, Besmer P, Guo T, et al.: Acquired resistance to imatinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor occurs through secondary gene mutation. Clin Cancer Res 2005, 11:4182-4190. 515 42.917 2011
34 Miettinen M, Leslie H, Lasota J: Evaluation of malignancy and prognosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a review. Hum pathol 2002, 33:478-483. 514 34.267 2005
35 Hirota S, Ohashi A, Nishida T, Isozaki K, Kinoshita K, Shinomura Y, Kitamura Y: Gain-of-function mutations of platelet-derived growth factor receptor α gene in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Gastroenterol 2003, 125:660-667. 512 36.571 2008
36 Lasota J, Jasinski M, Sarlomo-Rikala M, Miettinen M: Mutations in exon 11 of c-Kit occur preferentially in malignant versus benign gastrointestinal stromal tumors and do not occur in leiomyomas or leiomyosarcomas. Am J Pathol 1999, 154:53-60. 495 27.5 2002
37 Dematteo RP, Heinrich MC, Wa'el M ER, Demetri G: Clinical management of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: before and after STI-571. Hum Pathol 2002, 33:466-477. 487 32.467 2005
38 Corless CL, Schroeder A, Griffith D, et al.: PDGFRA mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumors: frequency, spectrum and in vitro sensitivity to imatinib. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23:5357-5364. 483 40.25 2008
39 Taniguchi M, Nishida T, Hirota S, et al.: Effect of c-kit mutation on prognosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Cancer Res 1999, 59:4297-4300. 474 26.333 2003
40 Miettinen M, Virolainen M: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors-value of CD34 antigen in their identification and separation from true leiomyomas and schwannomas. Am J Surg Pathol 1995, 19:207-216. 470 21.364 2001
41 Nishida T, Hirota S, Taniguchi M, et al.: Familial gastrointestinal stromal tumours with germline mutation of the KIT gene. Nat Genet 1998, 19:323-324. 448 23.579 2002
42 Sircar K, Hewlett BR, Huizinga JD, Chorneyko K, Berezin I, Riddell RH: Interstitial cells of Cajal as precursors of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 1999, 23:377-389. 446 24.778 2002
43 Blay JY, Bonvalot S, Casali P, et al.: Consensus meeting for the management of gastrointestinal stromal tumors Report of the GIST Consensus Conference of 20–21 March 2004, under the auspices of ESMO. Ann Oncol 2005, 16:566-578. 443 36.91 2009
44 Joensuu H, Fletcher C, Dimitrijevic S ,et al.: Management of malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumours. Lancet Oncol  2002, 3:655-664. 441 29.4 2006
45 Nielsen TO, West RB, Linn SC, et al.: Molecular characterisation of soft tissue tumours: a gene expression study. Lancet 2002, 359:1301-1307. 436 29.067 2006
46 Pidhorecky I, Cheney RT, Kraybill WG, Gibbs JF: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: current diagnosis, biologic behavior, and management. Ann Surg Oncol 2000, 7:705-712. 426 25.059 2006
47 Stroobants S, Goeminne J, Seegers M, et al.: 18 FDG-positron emission tomography for the early prediction of response in advanced soft tissue sarcoma treated with imatinib mesylate (Glivec®). Eur J Cancer 2003, 39:2012-2020. 420 30 2006;2008
48 Miettinen M, Sobin LH, Sarlomo-Rikala M: Immunohistochemical spectrum of GISTs at different sites and their differential diagnosis with a reference to CD117 (KIT). Mod Pathol 2000, 13:1134. 419 24.647 2005
49 Miettinen M, Monihan JM, Sarlomo-Rikala M, Kovatich AJ, Carr NJ, Emory TS, Sobin LH: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors/smooth muscle tumors (GISTs) primary in the omentum and mesentery: clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study of 26 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 1999, 23:1109. 417 23.167 2003
50 Force NT, Demetri G, Benjamin R, et al.: Nccn task force report: Management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (gist): Update of the nccn clinical practice guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2007, 5:S1-S29. 398 56.857 2015
51 Demetri GD, Von Mehren M, Antonescu CR, et al.: Nccn task force report: Update on the management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010, 8:S-1-S-41. 394 39.4 2009
52 Heinrich MC, Rubin BP, Longley BJ, Fletcher JA: Biology and genetic aspects of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: KIT activation and cytogenetic alterations. Hum Pathol 2002, 33:484-495. 390 26 2003;2005
53 Miettinen M, Makhlouf H, Sobin LH, Lasota J: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the jejunum and ileum: a clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic study of 906 cases before imatinib with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 2006, 30:477-489. 385 35 2010
54 Joensuu H, Eriksson M, Hall KS, et al.: One vs three years of adjuvant imatinib for operable gastrointestinal stromal tumor: a randomized trial. Jama 2012, 307:1265-1272. 383 76.6 2013
55 Benjamin RS, Choi H, Macapinlac HA, et al.: We should desist using RECIST, at least in GIST. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25:1760-1764. 380 38 2010
56 Joensuu H: Risk stratification of patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Hum Pathol 2008, 39:1411-1419. 379 42.111 2015
57 Heinrich MC, Maki RG, Corless CL, et al.: Primary and secondary kinase genotypes correlate with the biological and clinical activity of sunitinib in imatinib-resistant gastrointestinal stromal tumor. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26:5352-5359. 376 41.778 2009;2010
58 Shawver LK, Slamon D, Ullrich A: Smart drugs: tyrosine kinase inhibitors in cancer therapy. Cancer cell 2002, 1:117-123. 374 24.933 2003
59 West RB, Corless CL, Chen X, et al.: The novel marker, DOG1, is expressed ubiquitously in gastrointestinal stromal tumors irrespective of KIT or PDGFRA mutation status. Am J Pathol 2004, 165:107-113. 373 28.692 2015
60 Debiec-Rychter M, Cools J, Dumez H, et al.: Mechanisms of resistance to imatinib mesylate in gastrointestinal stromal tumors and activity of the PKC412 inhibitor against imatinib-resistant mutants. Gastroenterol 2005, 128:270-279. 369 30.75 2007
61 Demetri GD, Reichardt P, Kang YK, et al.: Efficacy and safety of regorafenib for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours after failure of imatinib and sunitinib (GRID): an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2013, 381:295-302. 368 92 2015
62 Corless CL, McGreevey L, Haley A, Town A, Heinrich MC: KIT mutations are common in incidental gastrointestinal stromal tumors one centimeter or less in size. Am J Pathol 2002, 160:1567-1572. 365 24.333 2004;2005
63 Ma Y, Zeng S, Metcalfe DD, et al.: The c-KIT mutation causing human mastocytosis is resistant to STI571 and other KIT kinase inhibitors; kinases with enzymatic site mutations show different inhibitor sensitivity profiles than wild-type kinases and those with regulatory-type mutations. Blood 2002, 99:1741-1744. 365 24.333 2004
64 Miettinen M, Majidi M, Lasota J: Pathology and diagnostic criteria of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs): a review Eur J Cancer 2002, 38:S39-51. 362 24.133 2007
65 Verweij J, van Oosterom A, Blay JY, et al.: Imatinib mesylate (STI-571 Glivec®, Gleevec™) is an active agent for gastrointestinal stromal tumours, but does not yield responses in other soft-tissue sarcomas that are unselected for a molecular target: results from an EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group phase II study. Eur J Cancer 2003, 39:2006-2011. 355 25.357 2005
66 Singer S, Rubin BP, Lux ML, Chen CJ, Demetri GD, Fletcher CD, Fletcher JA: Prognostic value of KIT mutation type, mitotic activity, and histologic subtype in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Clin Oncol 2002, 20:3898-3905. 355 23.667 2005
67 Rubin BP, Heinrich MC, Corless CL: Gastrointestinal stromal tumour. Lancet 2007, 369:1731-1741. 348 34.8 2006
68 Debiec-Rychter M, Dumez H, Judson I, et al.: Use of c-KIT/PDGFRA mutational analysis to predict the clinical response to imatinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours entered on phase I and II studies of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group. Eur J Cancer 2004, 40:689-695. 348 26.769 2008
69 Miettinen M, Furlong M, Sarlomo-Rikala M, Burke A, Sobin LH, Lasota J: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors, intramural leiomyomas, and leiomyosarcomas in the rectum and anus: a clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic study of 144 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2001, 25:1121-1133. 348 21.75 2008
70 Medeiros F, Corless CL, Duensing A, et al.: KIT-negative gastrointestinal stromal tumors: proof of concept and therapeutic implications. Am J Surg Pathol 2004, 28:889-894. 343 26.385 2006
71 Peng B, Lloyd P, Schran H: Clinical pharmacokinetics of imatinib. Clin Pharmacokinet 2005, 44:879-894. 338 28.167 2010
72 Tran T, Davila JA, El-Serag HB: The epidemiology of malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumors: an analysis of 1,458 cases from 1992 to 2000. Am J Gastroenterol 2005, 100:162. 337 28.083 2009
73 Heinrich MC, Owzar K, Corless CL, et al.: Correlation of kinase genotype and clinical outcome in the North American Intergroup Phase III Trial of imatinib mesylate for treatment of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor: CALGB 150105 Study by Cancer and Leukemia Group B and Southwest Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26:5360-367. 335 37.222 2012
74 Reith JD, Goldblum JR, Lyles RH, Weiss SW: Extragastrointestinal (soft tissue) stromal tumors: an analysis of 48 cases with emphasis on histologic predictors of outcome. Mod Pathol 2000, 13:577. 334 19.647 2011
75 Cook JR, Dehner LP, Collins MH, Ma Z, Morris SW, Coffin CM, Hill DA: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) expression in the inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor: a comparative immunohistochemical study. Am J Surg Pathol 2001, 25:1364-1371. 333 20.813 2015
76 Dagher, R. Cohen, M. Williams, et al.: Approval summary: Imatinib mesylate in the treatment of metastatic and/or unresectable malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2002, 10:3034-3038 330 19.412 2007
77 Miettinen M, Sarlomo-Rikala M, Sobin LH, Lasota J: Esophageal stromal tumors: a clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic study of 17 cases and comparison with esophageal leiomyomas and leiomyosarcomas. Am J Surg Pathol 2000; 24:211-222. 314 18.471 2006
78 Therasse P, Eisenhauer EA, Verweij J: RECIST revisited: A review of validation studies on tumour assessment. Eur J Cancer 2006, 42:1031-1039. 313 28.455 2009
79 Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SD, et al.: CT evaluation of the response of gastrointestinal stromal tumors after imatinib mesylate treatment: a quantitative analysis correlated with FDG PET findings AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004, 183:1619-1628. 310 23.846 2012
80 Levy AD, Remotti HE, Thompson WM, Sobin LH, Miettinen M: From the archives of the AFIP: gastrointestinal stromal tumors: radiologic features with pathologic correlation. Radiographics 2003, 23:283-304. 303 21.643 2001
81 Ueyama T, Guo KJ, Hashimoto H, Daimaru Y, Enjoji M: A clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Cancer 1992, 69:947-955. 303 12.12 2012
82 Miettinen M, Kopczynski J, Makhlouf HR, et al.: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors, intramural leiomyomas, and leiomyosarcomas in the duodenum: a clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic study of 167 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2003, 27:625-641. 298 21.286 2012
83 Goodman VL, Rock EP, Dagher R, et al.: Approval summary: sunitinib for the treatment of imatinib refractory or intolerant gastrointestinal stromal tumors and advanced renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2007, 13:1367-1373. 296 29.6 2009
84 Burkill GJ, Badran M, Al-Muderis O, Meirion Thomas J, Judson IR, Fisher C, Moskovic EC: Malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumor: distribution, imaging features, and pattern of metastatic spread. Radiology. 2003, 226:527-532. 296 21.143 2011
85 Franquemont DW: Differentiation and risk assessment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Am J Clin Pathol 1995, 103:41-47. 293 13.318 2001
86 Ando N, Goto H, Niwa Y, Hirooka Y, Ohmiya N, Nagasaka T, Hayakawa T: The diagnosis of GI stromal tumors with EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with immunohistochemical analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2002, 55:37-43. 289 19.267 2005;2009
87 DeMatteo RP, Gold JS, Saran L, et al.: Tumor mitotic rate, size, and location independently predict recurrence after resection of primary gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Cancer 2008, 112:608-615. 287 31.889 2012
88 Lasota J, Wozniak A, Sarlomo-Rikala M, et al.: Mutations in exons 9 and 13 of KIT gene are rare events in gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a study of 200 cases. Am J Pathol 2000, 157:1091-1095 285 16.765 2003
89 Blay JY, Le Cesne A, Ray-Coquard I, et al.: Prospective multicentric randomized phase III study of imatinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors comparing interruption versus continuation of treatment beyond 1 year: the French Sarcoma Group. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25:1107-1113. 281 28.1 2009
90 Corless CL, Barnett CM, Heinrich MC: Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: origin and molecular oncology. Nature reviews. Cancer 2011, 11:865. 280 46.667 2013
91 Raut CP, Posner M, Desai J, et al.: Surgical management of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors after treatment with targeted systemic therapy using kinase inhibitors. J Clin Oncol 2006, 24:2325-2331. 277 25.128 2012
92 Antonescu CR, Sommer G, Sarran L, et al,: Association of KIT exon 9 mutations with nongastric primary site and aggressive behavior. Clin Cancer Res 2003, 9:3329-3337. 274 19.571 2003
93 Pierie JP, Choudry U, Muzikansky A, Yeap BY, Souba WW, Ott MJ: The effect of surgery and grade on outcome of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Arch Surg 2001, 136:383-389. 274 17.125 2006;2008;2012
94 Desai J, Yassa L, Marqusee E, et al.: Hypothyroidism after sunitinib treatment for patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Ann Intern Med 2006, 145:660-664. 273 24.818 2007
95 Chen LL, Trent JC, Wu EF, et al.: A missense mutation in KIT kinase domain 1 correlates with imatinib resistance in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Cancer Res 2004, 64:5913-5919. 267 20.538 2004;2005
96 Janeway KA, Kim SY, Lodish M, et al.: Defects in succinate dehydrogenase in gastrointestinal stromal tumors lacking KIT and PDGFRA mutations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011, 108:314-318. 266 44.333 2008
97 Zalcberg JR, Verweij J, Casali PG, et al.: Outcome of patients with advanced gastro-intestinal stromal tumours crossing over to a daily imatinib dose of 800mg after progression on 400mg. Eur J Cancer 2005, 41:1751-1757. 266 22.167 2013
98 Joensuu H, Vehtari A, Riihimäki J, et al.: Risk of recurrence of gastrointestinal stromal tumour after surgery: an analysis of pooled population-based cohorts. Lancet Oncol 2012, 13:265-274. 261 52.2 2015
99 Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Sing RF, Heniford BT: Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Ann Surg 2006, 243:738. 260 23.636 2006
100 Tamborini E, Bonadiman L, Greco A, et al.: A new mutation in the KIT ATP pocket causes acquired resistance to imatinib in a gastrointestinal stromal tumor patient. Gastroenterology 2004, 127:294-299. 260 20 2012
Original article
peer-reviewed

The 100 Most Influential Papers and Recent Trends in the Field of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours: A Bibliometric Analysis


Author Information

Khadijah Siddiq

Civil Hospital Karachi, Dow University of Health Sciences (DUHS), Karachi, Pakistan

Hira F. Akbar Corresponding Author

Civil Hospital Karachi, Dow University of Health Sciences (DUHS), Karachi, Pakistan

Dow Medical College, Dow University of Health Sciences (DUHS), Karachi, Pakistan

Meeshal Khan

Civil Hospital Karachi, Dow University of Health Sciences (DUHS), Karachi, Pakistan

Amna A. Siddiqui

Civil Hospital Karachi, Dow University of Health Sciences (DUHS), Karachi, Pakistan

Salman Nusrat

Gasteroenterology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, United States

Jean Y. Blay,

Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.


Ethics Statement and Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.


Original article
peer-reviewed

The 100 Most Influential Papers and Recent Trends in the Field of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours: A Bibliometric Analysis


Figures etc.

PDF Print Share