血液系统恶性肿瘤中的姑息治疗：2000年至2025年的文献计量学综述与可视化分析。
完整摘要 · 中文译文
引言：血液系统恶性肿瘤患者承受着巨大的症状负担和不确定的疾病轨迹，然而姑息治疗的整合往往晚于实体肿瘤领域。本研究刻画了2000年至2025年间该文献的发表模式、合作网络、研究主题和引文结构。 方法：于2026年6月10日检索Web of Science核心合集和Scopus，纳入2000—2025年发表的英文论著和综述。经数据库整合、去重、筛选及全文治疗内容核实后，共纳入307篇文献。使用VOSviewer和R语言bibliometrix包总结年度产出、主要贡献者、关键词共现、趋势主题、主题社群、关键词突现、本地被引和参考文献共被引。通过结构化叙述性综合对高被引和近期文献进行情境化分析。 结果：语料库包括2001年至2025年间发表的258篇论著和49篇综述。年度产出以17.6%的描述性速率增长，2017年后更高，2025年达到49篇。美国贡献了146篇文献，国际合著占语料库的14.98%。杜克大学和哈佛大学是领先的机构群体，Thomas W. LeBlanc是最高产作者，《Journal of Palliative Medicine》发表文章最多。七种姑息治疗、支持治疗或临终关怀期刊占发表量的38.8%，而三种领先的血液学杂 各期刊共贡献了19篇文章。关键词共现、中位发表年份、主题社群和突现分析表明，近期发表的文献更频繁地涉及早期姑息治疗、整合、沟通、生活质量、医疗可及性、公平性与差异，以及伴随造血干细胞移植的照护。实质性文献描述了转诊延迟、临终期重症监护、输血可及性、预后不确定性、照护者需求以及基层姑息治疗能力有限。 结论：该文献数量有所扩展，并越来越多地探讨在强化血液学治疗期间同步开展姑息治疗。研究仍集中在少数国家、机构、作者团体和姑息治疗期刊。进一步的实证研究可考察代表性不足的情境和主题，包括社区、农村和国际照护、照护者支持、基层姑息治疗、公平性以及姑息性输血。这些文献计量学发现描述了文献的结构和主题；它们并不涉及临床有效性或实践变化。
完整摘要 · 英文原文
INTRODUCTION: Patients with hematologic malignancies experience a substantial symptom burden and uncertain disease trajectories, yet palliative care is often integrated later than in solid-tumor oncology. This study characterized publication patterns, collaboration networks, research topics, and citation structures in this literature from 2000 to 2025. METHODS: The Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus were searched on June 10, 2026, for English-language articles and reviews published during 2000-2025. After database integration, deduplication, screening, and full-text treatment-content verification, 307 publications were included. VOSviewer and the bibliometrix package in R were used to summarize annual output, leading contributors, keyword co-occurrence, trend topics, thematic communities, keyword bursts, local citations, and reference co-citation. A structured narrative synthesis contextualized highly cited and recent publications. RESULTS: The corpus comprised 258 articles and 49 reviews published between 2001 and 2025. Annual output increased at a descriptive rate of 17.6% and was higher after 2017, reaching 49 publications in 2025. The United States contributed 146 publications, while international co-authorship accounted for 14.98% of the corpus. Duke University and Harvard University were the leading institutional groups, Thomas W. LeBlanc was the most productive author, and the Journal of Palliative Medicine published the most articles. Seven palliative, supportive care, or hospice journals accounted for 38.8% of publications, whereas three leading hematology journals contributed 19 articles. Keyword co-occurrence, median publication years, thematic communities, and burst analyses indicated that recent publications more frequently addressed early palliative care, integration, communication, quality of life, health care access, equity and disparities, and care alongside hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. The substantive literature described late referral, intensive care near death, transfusion access, prognostic uncertainty, caregiver needs, and limited primary palliative care capacity. CONCLUSIONS: This literature has expanded and increasingly examines concurrent palliative care during intensive hematologic treatment. Research remains concentrated in a limited number of countries, institutions, author groups, and palliative care journals. Further empirical studies could examine underrepresented settings and topics, including community, rural, and international care, caregiver support, primary palliative care, equity, and palliative transfusion. These bibliometric findings describe the structure and topics of the literature; they do not address clinical effectiveness or changes in practice.