Here, we present a protocol for conducting bibliometric analysis in biomedicine using CiteSpace and VOSviewer. We describe the steps for extracting data from Web of Science, data cleaning, and preprocessing. We then detail procedures for identifying research trends and collaboration networks by visualizing data with CiteSpace; mapping co-authorship, co-citation, and keyword co-occurrence using VOSviewer; and analyzing highly cited literature to identify key publications and trends. Finally, we outline techniques for interpreting the visualizations to draw meaningful conclusions about the research landscape. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Li et al.¹.

Background: The efficacy of intersphincteric resection (ISR) surgery for patients with lower rectal cancer remains unclear compared to abdominoperineal resection (APR). The aim of this study is to compare the oncologic outcomes for lower rectal cancer patients after ISR and APR through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: A systematic electronic search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE was performed through January 12, 2022. The primary outcomes included 5-year disease-free survival (5y-DFS) and 5-year overall survival. Secondary outcomes included circumferential resection margin involvement, local recurrence, perioperative outcomes, and other long-term outcomes. The pooled odds ratios, mean difference, or hazard ratios (HRs) of each outcome measurement and their 95% CIs were calculated. Results: A total of 20 nonrandomized controlled studies were included in the qualitative analysis, with 1217 patients who underwent ISR and 1135 patients who underwent APR. There was no significant difference in 5y-DFS (HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.55–1.29; P=0.43) and 5-year overall survival (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.60–1.46; P=0.76) between the two groups. Using the results of five studies that reported matched T stage and tumor distance, we performed another pooled analysis. Compared to APR, the ISR group had equal 5y-DFS (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.45–1.30; P=0.31) and 5y-LRFS (local recurrence-free survival) (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.29–1.78; P=0.48). Meanwhile, ISR had equivalent local control as well as perioperative outcomes while significantly reducing the operative time (mean difference: −24.89, 95% CI: −45.21 to −4.57; P=0.02) compared to APR. Conclusions: Our results show that the long-term survival and safety of patients is not affected by ISR surgery, although this result needs to be carefully considered and requires further study due to the risk of bias and limited data.

Introduction Laparoscopic colectomy has been widely used clinically due to its minimally invasive advantages, and many studies have also demonstrated its safety and efficacy. However, the efficacy of laparoscopic left hemicolectomy remains unclear due to the differences in pathogenesis and surgical details between left and right colon cancers. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether laparoscopic techniques can be safely used in left hemicolectomy. Method and analysis This meta-analysis protocol will be completed and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. A systematic search was performed for all articles related to laparoscopic left hemicolectomy in PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to 5 November 2021. Article screening and data extraction were performed independently by two authors and cross-checked after completion. The literature to be included will use corresponding tools for bias risk assessment. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses will be used to explore potential heterogeneity. Ethics and dissemination Because this systematic review is based on studies with published results and does not involve intervention in patients, no ethical review is required. The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022291526.