Next Article in Journal
Postural Control and Functional Ankle Stability in Professional and Amateur Skateboarders
Previous Article in Journal
Healthcare Digitalisation and the Changing Nature of Work and Society
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 9
Issue 8
10.3390/healthcare9081008
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Psycho-Oncology: A Bibliometric Review of the 100 Most-Cited Articles

by
Susan Fox
1,*,
Julie Lynch
1,2,
Paul D’Alton
1,2 and
Alan Carr
1
1
School of Psychology, University College Dublin, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland
2
St Vincent’s University Hospital, D04 T6F4 Dublin, Ireland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2021, 9(8), 1008; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9081008
Submission received: 17 May 2021 / Revised: 8 July 2021 / Accepted: 9 July 2021 / Published: 6 August 2021
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: A bibliometric review of psycho-oncology research is overdue. (2) Methods: The 100 most-cited journal articles were compiled and ranked according to Scopus. (3) Results: The total citation count for the results ranged from 488–8509 (Mean = 940.27; SD = 1015.69). A significant correlation was found between years since publication and number of citations (p = 0.039). The majority of research originated from the United States (66%). The vast majority of research publications were original articles (80%). Observational research study designs represented the majority of studies (37%). Mixed cancer population research studies represented the largest cancer research population (36%). Positive psychology topics represented the most prolific proportion of studies (30%). Findings were reported in line with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. (4) Conclusions: This analysis offers a comprehensive account of seminal journal articles in psycho-oncology, identifying landmark contributions and areas for future research developments within the field, namely highlighting a need for more RCT studies. This analysis serves as an educational tool for interdisciplinary researchers and clinicians to support compassionate cancer care.

1. Introduction

Psycho-oncology is a collaborative, cross-disciplinary subspecialty of oncology with domains in the psychological, social, behavioural, and ethical aspects of cancer in clinical care [1,2]. The discipline provides clinical and research material about issues clinically relevant to health professionals who provide psychosocial services to cancer patients, their families, and their caregivers [3]. The foundations of the field first came into existence in the 1970s [1], the evolution of which has previously been detailed by the founder of the field, Dr Jimmie Holland [1,3].
Overtime a large body of literature has been published comprising a wide range of relevant research and clinical themes. A previous review of this wealth of literature by Greer outlines the important need to “close the yawning gap between current knowledge and therapeutic skills on the one hand and actual clinical care of cancer patients on the other” [4]. As the discipline approaches fifty years since formal foundation, a bibliometric review of the literature is warranted to aid the synthesis and implementation of the evidence base.
Citation count is an important metric in understanding the significance of a research contribution to a research field [5,6,7]. Situational analyses which identify research that has exerted significant citation influence offers researchers and clinicians an introduction to seminal research publications. It can be argued that the most-cited publications of a research field theoretically contribute the most to the respective field [8,9,10,11]. Notably, the approach has proved useful in practice-driven research funding decision-making by offering objective and reliable bibliometric quantitative analysis of grant productivity [8,12]. Bibliometric analyses with the aid of bibliographic electronic databases offer a systematic overview of peer-reviewed research in a range of disciplines and research fields [13,14]. Neurosciences have widely adopted the methodology to identify seminal research and contributors [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. The use of bibliometric methodologies is emerging in cancer care [12,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. However, to date, no known research has identified the highest-cited articles in psycho-oncology. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify and describe the characteristics of seminal journal articles that have contributed to the development of the field of psycho-oncology. Given the extensive remit of the multidisciplinary field of psycho-oncology, a bibliometric review of the literature may prove a helpful introduction for researchers and clinicians working in cancer care.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This article describes a citation analysis of journal articles in the field of psycho-oncology pertaining to the guidance of clinical practice and research. A review of the 100 most-cited papers is consistent with the methodological approach to bibliometric reviews in health research [13,14,16,17,30,31,32,33]. A review protocol was developed to support the study’s objectives, search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria and risk of bias assessment. No deviations from the protocol were made.

2.2. Search Strategy and Study Selection

Publications pertaining to “psychosocial oncology” or “psycho-oncology” and psychological processes relating to cancer were identified. The search strategy was informed by the keywords and terms constructed by key journals in the field [2].
A time limit of publications from 1970 to 2020 was imposed on the searches, as the field of psycho-oncology was formally founded in the mid-1970s [1]. Searches were limited to the English language due to resource limitations (see Supplementary Material for detailed search strategy). The list of the top 100 cited articles was compiled and ranked according to the outputs from the Scopus database search in March 2020. Scopus was selected as the primary database because it provides access to more journals (approximately 34,346 peer-reviewed journals) than other widely used electronic databases, such as Web of Science (approximately 24,748 peer-reviewed journals) [34]. Key to database selection, Scopus provides tools for citation overview, allowing for bibliometric ranking of credited citations. Furthermore, several key psychosocial-oncology journals are indexed within Scopus. Inclusion of one electronic database is standard practice in bibliometric analyses [14,16,17,30,31,33]. Results retrieved from Scopus were sorted using the sorting option “times cited—highest to lowest.” Scopus outputs were then exported to Covidence, an electronic primary screening and data extraction tool, which has been recommended as best practice in rigorous review methodology data charting [35,36,37]. Duplicates were removed. Two reviewers (S.F. and J.L.) independently applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria to screen each title and abstract using the Covidence platform. Disagreements between the two reviewers were resolved through a further detailed review of the article(s) in question, and discussion until consensus was reached. An equivalent process of review was conducted for the full-text screening phase. Cohen’s κ indicated almost perfect interrater reliability (κ = 0.97, 98.87% of agreement).

2.3. Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility criteria were bound to the remit outlined in key definitions of psycho-oncology [1,2,38]. Journal articles were eligible for inclusion if their major focus addressed the psychological, social, behavioural, ethical, and systemic dimensions of cancer (including stable and modifiable confounding and interacting factors); specifically, the psychological responses of patients to cancer at all stages of the disease, and that of their families and caregivers including their health professionals; and the factors that may influence the disease process [1]. Given the intrinsic multidisciplinary nature of psycho-oncology, journal articles from a range of disciplines were eligible for inclusion, where the primary focus explored subjects within the defined remit of psycho-oncology. Eligibility criteria were extended to counselling, education, epidemiology, health advocacy, neurology, nursing, nutrition, palliative care, physical therapy, psychiatry, psychology, public health, social work, sociology, and oncology specialities [2]. Journal articles published in the English language were eligible for inclusion. No restrictions were placed on the type of research model, article type (e.g., research article, review, conference proceedings, editorial, letter, etc.).
Studies were ineligible for inclusion if they were the following:
  • Journal articles with primarily medical foci despite the inclusion of brief quality of life measures;
  • Journal articles which described mixed patient populations beyond oncology; or
  • Did not have psycho-oncology research or practice as key foci.

2.4. Data Extraction

Data were extracted independently by the two reviewers. Information was extracted on the following variables: (1) title; (2) authorship and publication year; (3) country of publication and first author’s affiliation at the time of publication; (4) journal; (5) article type (e.g., intervention, systematic review); (6) article global subject (e.g., cancer prevention, psychoneuroimmunology or post-traumatic growth); (7) number of citations; (8) and citation rank. High percentage agreement between raters was found (percentage agreement = 94%).

2.5. Self-Citations

Using the “exclude self-citations” tool in Scopus, the percentage of self-citations within the list of 100 most highly cited articles derived from Scopus was calculated.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was calculated to determine whether the number of years since publication was correlated with total number of citations among the included articles.

2.7. Publication Trends

Additional searches using the terms “psycho-oncology” and “psychosocial oncology” were conducted within Scopus. These searches and the resulting data provide a broad overview of the publication trends of articles using these terms.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

A PRISMA flow diagram for the Scopus results is provided in Figure 1. The initial search returned 197,569 results, of which the titles and abstracts of the 2000 highest-cited articles were screened using the eligibility criteria. Full-text screening was completed for 351 articles. Results were ranked according to citation counts to represent the 100 most-cited articles. A table of the included 100 publications and a citation details are presented in the Appendix A.

3.2. Self-Citations

Self-citations were found to represent 4.4 per cent of total citations retrieved from Scopus.

3.3. Study Characteristics

The characteristics of the articles retrieved are provided in Table 1. Of the 100 included papers, the highest-cited articles were published between 1992 and 2005. A significant correlation was found between years since publication and the number of citations (p = 0.039). The citation range was 488–8509 (mean = 940.27, SD = 1015.69). Similarly to recent bibliometric reviews [22,39] a word cloud of the words contained in the titles of the 100 included studies was generated using wordle.net in order to depict influential prevailing words and themes within the field of psycho-oncology. Popular words and phrases are highlighted based on frequency and relevance to the titles of the 100 included papers (see Figure 2).

3.4. The 100 Most-Cited Articles

The distribution of results for the 100 most-cited articles is presented in Table 1. A comprehensive list of results is presented in the Appendix A.

3.5. Country of Publication

The country of origin of the first author for each article represented study origin data. Overall, 10 nations contributed to included study origin. The United States of America represented the largest contribution of studies (66%), followed respectively by the United Kingdom (12%) and Canada (10%). See all contributory countries in Table 1, panel 1.

3.6. Publication Type

The distribution of document type is presented in panel 2. Original articles represented 80% of the studies. Review papers and conference papers represented 18% and 2% of studies respectively.

3.7. Type of Study

Observational research study designs represented the majority of studies (37%). Cross-sectional observational designs represented the largest cohort of studies (20%) followed closely by prospective designs (17%). Tool development/evaluation, intervention and review studies each represented 21% of studies. Comprehensive distribution of study methodology is presented in panel 3.

3.8. Global Subject Topic

Positive psychology represented the largest proportion of included studies (30%), where the overarching global subject topic of studies examined psychological well-being and post-traumatic growth (14%), quality of life (14%), and mindfulness (2%). Clinical psychology global topics represented the second-largest cohort of studies (12%), where topics included psychological distress and mental health outcome including depression and suicidality were explored. Parallel psychological and physical health outcomes were the global subject topic for 2% of studies. Symptom prevalence represented 15% of study global subject topics, where 5% of studies examined pain prevalence and 10% explored additional cancer-related sequelae including the prevalence of cancer-related fatigue. Health promotion studies represented 6% of studies. These studies explored cancer prevention including self-monitoring behaviour, genomic testing, and survivorship intervention studies. Patient–physician communication and patient communication needs represented 10% of studies. Patient treatment choices including complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) represented 4% of studies. Palliative or supportive care studies represented 6%. Psychoneuroimmunology research represented 6% of the studies. Survivorship analyses represented 6% of the studies. Family system outcomes represented 1% of studies. See panel 4 for comprehensive results.

3.9. Cancer Population

The largest proportion of studies explored mixed cancer populations (36%) followed by breast cancer populations (25%), and advanced/terminal cancer populations (15%). A significant proportion of studies did not define the cancer population (13%). A further 5% of studies included prostate cancer patients. Lung and malignant melanoma patients each represented 2% of studies. Brain, cervical, gastric, laryngeal, and colorectal cancer populations each represented 1% of studies. See panel 5 for comprehensive results. The vast majority of the included studies examined adult populations (97%). The remaining 3% of the studies examined child populations.

3.10. Major Contributing Journals and Periods

The 100 most-cited articles were published in 46 journals; 17 journals represented more than one study. The major contributing journals are presented in Table 2. The journals that contributed six or more of the 100 most-cited studies included the Journal of the American Medical Association, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The British Medical Journal, Health Psychology and the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The journal that published the 100 most-cited psycho-oncology studies with the highest citation count was The Lancet.
The 100 most-cited studies were published from 1975 to 2016. Figure 3 presents the publication trends for the 100 included publications. A period of 24 years represented 79% of studies, where the majority of studies were published between 1981–2005. A peak in publications was observed in the year 2000.
Figure 4 provides an overview of publication trends within Scopus under the key terms “psycho oncology” and “psychosocial oncology”. Publications under the term “psychosocial oncology” precede “psycho oncology” publications commencing in 1973. The term “psycho oncology” presents initially in 1979, demonstrating the evolution of the discipline. A peak in publications was observed in 2018 for both search terms.

3.11. The 10 Most-Cited Articles

The ten most-cited studies are presented in Table 3. The articles included the following: three studies detailing the development and assessment of psychometric measures, two quality of life measures [40,41] and one pain measure [42]; two reviews, the first explores psychological adjustment to breast cancer diagnosis [43], and the latter explores the role of mindfulness in psychological well-being and includes a prospective mindfulness-based intervention for early-stage cancer patients [44]; one cross-sectional observational study which compares psychological distress prevalence by cancer site [45] two controlled trial studies, one randomised controlled trial exploring an early palliative care intervention for metastatic lung cancer patients [46]; and one prospective controlled trial exploring a psychosocial group-based intervention for metastatic breast cancer patients [47]; and finally two prospective cohort studies, one identifying the determinants of quality of life and satisfaction among prostate cancer survivors [48]; and one determining the impact of end-of-life patient–physician communication on patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment in advanced cancer patients and their family systems [49].

3.12. Major Contributing Authors

Overall, a total of 158 authors contributed to the results. There was wide, disparate authorship for first authors where 91 first authors represented the 100 included studies. Of these included studies, only one first author had published three studies as first author [47,50,51]. Three other first authors each published two studies as first author [40,52,53,54,55,56]. Each of these authors contributed as co-authors to other studies indicating a psycho-oncological focus in their published work. Cella, D. contributed the largest number of studies to the research (n = 7) [40,52,57,58,59,60,61]. Table 4 presents results for authors who contributed three or more of the 100 most-cited psycho-oncology articles.

4. Discussion

The aim of this review was to perform a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most-cited journal articles in psycho-oncology. It is, to the best of our knowledge, the first study to identify and describe the characteristics of highly cited journal articles and publication trends that have contributed to the development of the field.
The results of the bibliometric review provide a systematic overview of seminal research in psycho-oncology overtime. Our review presents a body of evidence which may have multiple applications for researchers and clinicians alike working in the field of psycho-oncology, including potential for the development of educational materials, journal editorial strategy, and future research.
In accordance with Scopus, our analysis revealed that the 100 most-cited articles were published between 1975 and 2016. This finding is in keeping with the timeline of previous reviews which describe the evolution of the discipline, from a time when a diagnosis of cancer was stigmatised and not openly disclosed to patients, and towards a time of more trauma-informed cancer care [1,2,38]. The 100 most-cited journal articles were all published by 2016 and the ten most-cited articles averaged 21.8 years since publication, indicating that the research exists along a developmental trajectory whereby time impacts on citation count and subsequent influence. The majority of research originated from the United States (66%). The vast majority of research publications were original articles (80%). Observational research study designs represented the majority of studies (37%). Mixed cancer population research studies represented the largest cancer research population (36%).
Our analysis revealed that positive psychology topics and clinical psychosocial-oncology topics represented the most prolific proportion of included studies. This finding reflects one of the most fundamental questions that psycho-oncology seeks to understand—how do people with cancer feel? The global subject topics included in our analysis reflect the targets of previous narrative reviews of psycho-oncology [38]. Other subject topics included in our review explored parallel psychological and physical health outcomes, symptom prevalence including pain and cancer-related fatigue, health promotion and cancer prevention research including self-monitoring behaviour, genomic testing and survivorship intervention studies, patient–physician communication and patient communication needs, patient treatment choices including complementary and alternative medicine, palliative care research, psychoneuroimmunology, survivorship, and family system outcomes. Our analysis highlights the psychosocial transitory nature of cancer, which presents the potential for both positive and negative outcomes [62]. Findings reflect increased recognition for the “people part” of cancer care and the sixth vital sign in medicine—distress [63]. Enhanced patient participation and increased patient–physician communication in treatment decisions have been described in recent reviews of the field [3]. Beyond this, the analysis emphasises the impact of psychosocial factors in physical health and the growing attention that psychoneuroimmunology research has gained [64]. A paucity of highly cited research on adherance to cancer treatment was identified. Given the value of research on this subject topic for MDTs, this factor represents a deficit among included study topics.
Journal and author contributions were widely heterogeneous in nature. Our analyses revealed 91 first authors contributors across the 100 included studies. Notably, self-citations represented a very small percentage of citations (4.4%). A previous review of self-citations in research indicated that self-citations typically account for an average 10–20% of citation counts [65]. The 100 included articles were published in 46 journals, where 17 journals represented more than one study. Included studies were published in high-impact factor journals. Our analysis of highly cited journal articles reflects the interdisciplinary nature of psychosocial-oncology, which demonstrated the interfacing and overlapping boundaries with general medicine, oncology, psychiatry, pain medicine, health, and social psychology [2]. In keeping with this finding, interdisciplinary researcher and Chair of the Interdisciplinary Department of Medical Social Sciences at Northwestern University, Prof. David Cella, was the most prolific author) [40,52,57,58,59,60,61]. Additional analysis of global publication trends within Scopus indicated that the term “psychosocial oncology” precedes “psycho-oncology”. Although the percentage of publication increased over time, a noticeable peak in publications was observed in 2018 for both search terms, clearly demonstrating the dynamic evolution of the discipline. In addition to time, other secular trends such as increased capacity of search engines and access to research articles online positively impact citation count.

4.1. Strengths and Limitations

Beyond its novel contribution, this bibliometric analysis was strengthened by the use of two search methods. The keyword search enabled the identification of publication trends for psychosocial oncology in addition to psycho-oncology. This methodological consideration enriches the tapestry of the findings as psychosocial oncology terminology precedes psycho-oncology in the evolution of the field [1]. Additionally, the review was strengthened by its adherence to bibliometric technical methods [66,67]. A further strength of this study is the assessment of the prevalence of self-citations. Inclusion of this analyses explores academic biases which can artificially inflate citation impact rate by objectively assessing the impact of ‘other-driven’ citations [5,68]. Inversely, this bibliometric review is not without its own limitations. Specifically, a publication bias may have been induced by the methodological limitation to only include English language publications. This limitation may explain why the study origins of the leading contributing counties were Anglophonic countries, namely the USA, UK, and Canada, because seminal articles in other languages were not included.
Though comprehensive, our analysis was limited in that research influence was operationalised using a citation-driven approach. Indeed each metric has its own limitations that need to be considered when selecting an appropriate metric for evaluation. Given the advantages and disadvantages of citation counts, our analysis should be interpreted with caution [5,68]. In academia, it is a common misconception that citation counts provide a benchmark for the impact of research. It should be noted that citation-driven bibliometric analyses neglect to consider the influence of landmark conceptual research journal articles. Further, our analysis does not assess the quality of the research presented. Quality appraisal of the findings was not possible, given the heterogeneity of the resulting output. It is important to consider that citation count fails to represent the quality of the research. Our analysis cannot identify with any authority the key conceptual journal articles that have shaped the trajectory and development of the field. This shortcoming serves as a rationale to support the investigation of conceptually-driven influential psychosocial-oncology research in future. However, it can be noted that previous review articles have reflected on key conceptual developments [1,3]. Finally, the search was limited to the Scopus electronic database. While the inclusion of one electronic database is standard practice in bibliometric analyses [14,16,17,30,31,33], it is important to critique any outcome metric provider. Key to database selection, Scopus provides tools for citation overview including self-citation analysis. However, highly cited articles in journals not indexed in Scopus may not have been captured in the findings. Further, citation count varies between databases [5,68]. For this reason, the ranking of included articles should be interpreted with caution.

4.2. Implications for Psycho-Oncology Practice and Research

Given the extensive remit of the multidisciplinary field of oncology, a bibliometric review of the psycho-oncology literature may prove a helpful introduction for multidisciplinary teams working in cancer care. This review offers a broad overview of seminal research in the field. It also honours the key contributors to the field by identifying work that has been frequently cited by other researchers. Clinicians new to the field may perceive psycho-oncology to solely encompass the psychological health of oncology patients. It is important to educate new clinicians to routinely and sensitively consider the individual and systemic level psychological, social, behavioural, and ethical aspects of cancer, since they can substantially influence the outcome of treatment. This review provides health professions with an educational resource that compounds our understanding of the mind–body interaction that continues to challenge a mechanical model of cancer.
This study generates knowledge regarding the intricacies of psycho-oncology clinical practice and research work and emphasises the need for compassionate collaborative, cross-disciplinary cancer care. It is important to acknowledge the need for translation beyond citation into interdisciplinary practice.

4.3. Future Directions

This bibliometric review provides a situational analysis of the field of psycho-oncology in the present, as opposed to a view of the future of the field. As discussed previously, it is important to note that our analyses offers a snapshot of highly cited seminal research in psycho-oncology at one point in time. Our analysis is best viewed as a live document responding to the evolving priorities of the field. We recommend replication studies at regular intervals to update the findings in order to maximise educational value. The nature of our review offers a broad scope of the field; future research could consider a more introspective bibliometric analysis of Psycho-Oncology exclusively [69]. Bibliometric reviews of single journals help chart the developmental growth and trajectory of a journal by identifying research trends, areas of research neglect, and disparities in academic publishing. Findings may offer editorial boards insight to help close gaps in research and help support funded external research grant calls [69].
Such an approach would offer increased insight and further support the maturity of the discipline, educational materials, and journal editorial strategy.
Relatively few high-quality RCT studies were included. This deficit identified in our analysis generates greater understanding of one of the pervading gaps in the research field. Our analysis underscores the critical need to enhance the science of psycho-oncology. Greater emphasis on high-quality methodological research is needed. This finding serves as a specific area of research opportunity to greater align future research to the needs of the field.

5. Conclusions

Psycho-oncology is a vast subspecialty of oncology encompassing diverse areas of clinical practice and research, focusing on the humanism in cancer-prevention, treatment, and aftercare. Given the evolution of the field from a place where the word ‘cancer’ was stigmatised and the feelings of cancer patients were not acknowledged, a bibliometric review which reflects on almost fifty years since the formal foundation of the field is overdue. This bibliometric review identifies the most frequently cited psycho-oncology journal articles published across all journals listed in Scopus. The results identified in this study are landmark papers that have contributed greatly to the field. This review denotes the growing nature of the discipline, which continues to advance. As the discipline has become increasingly established, there has been a simultaneous increase in research publications. While this study is not without its limitations, it is hoped that identification of seminal research publications will help inform future research contributions. This analysis should serve to support the routine consideration of the psychosocial aspects of cancer care. It may provide a useful educational tool for interdisciplinary clinicians. It is hoped that it will encourage considered compassionate care for cancer patients.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/healthcare9081008/s1: Supplementary Material 1. Scopus String Search, Supplementary Material 2. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.F. and A.C.; methodology, S.F.; software, S.F.; validation, S.F., J.L., and P.D.; formal analysis, S.F. and A.C.; investigation, S.F.; resources, S.F.; data curation, S.F.; writing—original draft preparation, S.F.; writing—review and editing, S.F., J.L., P.D., A.C.; visualization, S.F.; supervision, A.C.; project administration, S.F.; funding acquisition, N/A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

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

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Comprehensive results from Scopus for the 100 most cited journal articles.
Table A1. Comprehensive results from Scopus for the 100 most cited journal articles.
RankAuthorsTitleYearJournal
1Aaronson N.K., et al. [41]The European Organization For Research And Treatment Of Cancer QLQ-C30: A Quality-Of-Life Instrument For Use In International Clinical Trials In Oncology1993Journal of the National Cancer Institute
2Brown K.W., & Ryan R.M. [44]The Benefits Of Being Present: Mindfulness And Its Role In Psychological Well-Being2003Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
3Temel J.S., et al. [46]Early Palliative Care For Patients With Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer2010New England Journal of Medicine
4Cella D.F., et al. [40]The Functional Assessment Of Cancer Therapy Scale: Development And Validation Of The General Measure1993Journal of Clinical Oncology
5Cleeland C.S., et al. [42] Pain Assessment: Global Use Of The Brief Pain Inventory.1994Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore
6Taylor S.E. [43]Adjustment To Threatening Events: A Theory Of Cognitive Adaptation1983American Psychologist
7Spiegel D., et al. [47]Effect Of Psychosocial Treatment On Survival Of Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer1989The Lancet
8Zabora J., et al. [45]The Prevalence Of Psychological Distress By Cancer Site2001Psycho-Oncology
9Sanda M.G., et al. [48]Quality Of Life And Satisfaction With Outcome Among Prostate-Cancer Survivors2008New England Journal of Medicine
10Wright A.A., et al. [49]Associations Between End-Of-Life Discussions, Patient Mental Health, Medical Care Near Death, And Caregiver Bereavement Adjustment2008Journal of the American Medical Association
11Derogatis L.R., et al. [70]The Prevalence Of Psychiatric Disorders Among Cancer Patients1983Journal of the American Medical Association
12Carver C.S., et al. [71]How Coping Mediates The Effect Of Optimism On Distress: A Study Of Women With Early Stage Breast Cancer1993Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
13Spitzer W.O., et al. [72]Measuring The Quality Of Life Of Cancer Patients. A Concise QL-Index For Use By Physicians1981Journal of Chronic Diseases
14Holmes M.D., et al. [73]Physical Activity And Survival After Breast Cancer Diagnosis2005Journal of the American Medical Association
15Murthy V.H., et al. [74]Participation In Cancer Clinical Trials: Race-, Sex-, And Age-Based Disparities2004Journal of the American Medical Association
16Yellen S.B., et al. [61]Measuring Fatigue And Other Anemia-Related Symptoms With The Functional Assessment Of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Measurement System1997Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
17Serlin R.C., et al. [75]When Is Cancer Pain Mild, Moderate Or Severe? Grading Pain Severity By Its Interference With Function1995Pain
18Portenoy R.K., et al. [55]The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale: An Instrument For The Evaluation Of Symptom Prevalence, Characteristics And Distress1994European Journal of Cancer
19Wei J.T., et al. [76]Development And Validation Of The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) For Comprehensive Assessment Of Health-Related Quality Of Life In Men With Prostate Cancer2000Urology
20Cassileth B.R., et al. [77]Information And Participation Preferences Among Cancer Patients1980Annals of Internal Medicine
21Degner L.F., et al. [78]Information Needs And Decisional Preferences In Women With Breast Cancer1997Journal of the American Medical Association
22Bakitas M., et al. [79]Effects Of A Palliative Care Intervention On Clinical Outcomes In Patients With Advanced Cancer: The Project ENABLE II Randomized Controlled Trial2009Journal of the American Medical Association
23Peterman A.H., et al. [59] Measuring Spiritual Well-Being In People With Cancer: The Functional Assessment Of Chronic Illness Therapy - Spiritual Well-Being Scale (FACIT-Sp)2002Annals of Behavioral Medicine
24Litwin M.S., et al. [53]Quality-Of-Life Outcomes In Men Treated For Localized Prostate Cancer1995Journal of the American Medical Association
25Fawzy F.I., et al. [80]Malignant Melanoma: Effects Of An Early Structured Psychiatric Intervention, Coping, And Affective State On Recurrence And Survival 6 Years Later1993Archives of General Psychiatry
26Schipper H., et al. [81]Measuring The Quality Of Life Of Cancer Patients: The Functional Living Index-Cancer: Development And Validation1984Journal of Clinical Oncology
27Zech D.F., et al. [82]Validation Of World Health Organization Guidelines For Cancer Pain Relief: A 10-Year Prospective Study1995Pain
28Wolfe J., et al. [83]Symptoms And Suffering At The End Of Life In Children With Cancer2000New England Journal of Medicine
29Shacham, S. [84]A Shortened Version Of The Profile Of Mood States1983Journal of Personality Assessment
30Curt G.A., et al. [58]Impact Of Cancer-Related Fatigue On The Lives Of Patients: New Findings From The Fatigue Coalition2000Oncologist
31Degner L.F., & Sloan J.A. [85] Decision Making During Serious Illness: What Role Do Patients Really Want To Play?1992Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
32Speck R.M., et al. [86]An Update Of Controlled Physical Activity Trials In Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis2010Journal of Cancer Survivorship
33Foley K.M. [87]The Treatment Of Cancer Pain1985New England Journal of Medicine
34Demark-Wahnefried W., et al. [88]Riding The Crest Of The Teachable Moment: Promoting Long-Term Health After The Diagnosis Of Cancer2005Journal of Clinical Oncology
35Burgess C., et al. [89]Depression And Anxiety In Women With Early Breast Cancer: Five Year Observational Cohort Study2005British Medical Journal
36Calman K.C. [90]Quality Of Life In Cancer Patients—An Hypothesis.1984Journal of Medical Ethics
37Bower J.E., et al. [91]Fatigue In Breast Cancer Survivors: Occurrence, Correlates, And Impact On Quality Of Life2000Journal of Clinical Oncology
38Reiche E.M.V., et al. [92]Stress, Depression, The Immune System, And Cancer2004Lancet Oncology
39Zimmermann C., et al. [93] Early Palliative Care For Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial2014The Lancet
40Rock C.L., et al. [94]Nutrition And Physical Activity Guidelines For Cancer Survivors2012CA: Cancer Journal for Clinicians
41Spiegel D., et al. [50]Group Support For Patients With Metastatic Cancer: A Randomized Prospective Outcome Study1981Archives of General Psychiatry
42Meyer T.J., & Mark M.M. [95] Effects Of Psychosocial Interventions With Adult Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis Of Randomized Experiments1995Health Psychology
43Breitbart W., et al. [96]Depression, Hopelessness, And Desire For Hastened Death In Terminally Ill Patients With Cancer2000Journal of the American Medical Association
44Antoni M.H., et al. [97]Cognitive-Behavioral Stress Management Intervention Decreases The Prevalence Of Depression And Enhances Benefit Finding Among Women Under Treatment For Early-Stage Breast Cancer2001Health Psychology
45Detmar S.B., et al. [98]Health-Related Quality-Of-Life Assessments And Patient-Physician Communication: A Randomized Controlled Trial2002Journal of the American Medical Association
46De Haes M., et al. [99]Measuring Psychological And Physical Distress In Cancer Patients: Structure And Application Of The Rotterdam Symptom Checklist1990British Journal of Cancer
47McNeely M.L., et al. [100]Effects Of Exercise On Breast Cancer Patients And Survivors: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis2006Canadian Medical Association Journal
48Glimelius B., et al. [101]Randomized Comparison Between Chemotherapy Plus Best Supportive Care With Best Supportive Care In Advanced Gastric Cancer1997Annals of Oncology
49Goodwin P.J., et al. [102]The Effect Of Group Psychosocial Support On Survival In Metastatic Breast Cancer2001New England Journal of Medicine
50Lerman C., et al. [103]BRCA1 Testing In Families With Hereditary Breast-Ovarian Cancer: A Prospective Study Of Patient Decision Making And Outcomes1996Journal of the American Medical Association
51Vogelzang N.J., et al. [60] Patient, Caregiver, And Oncologist Perceptions Of Cancer-Related Fatigue: Results Of A Tripart Assessment Survey1997Seminars in Hematology
52Speca M., et al. [104]A Randomized, Wait-List Controlled Clinical Trial: The Effect Of A Mindfulness Meditation-Based Stress Reduction Program On Mood And Symptoms Of Stress In Cancer Outpatients2000Psychosomatic Medicine
53Molassiotis A., et al. [105]Use Of Complementary And Alternative Medicine In Cancer Patients: A European Survey2005Annals of Oncology
54Litwin M.S., et al. [54]The UCLA Prostate Cancer Index: Development, Reliability, And Validity Of A Health-Related Quality Of Life Measure1998Medical Care
55Taylor S.E., et al. [106]Attributions, Beliefs About Control, And Adjustment To Breast Cancer1984Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
56Fallowfield L., et al. [107]Efficacy Of A Cancer Research UK Communication Skills Training Model For Oncologists: A Randomised Controlled Trial2002Lancet
57Cordova M.J., et al. [62]Posttraumatic Growth Following Breast Cancer: A Controlled Comparison Study2001Health Psychology
58Gomes B., & Higginson I.J. [108]Factors Influencing Death At Home In Terminally Ill Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review2006British Medical Journal
59Slevin M.L., et al. [109]Attitudes To Chemotherapy: Comparing Views Of Patients With Cancer With Those Of Doctors, Nurses, And General Public1990British Medical Journal
60Meyerowitz B.E., & Chaiken S. [110]The Effect Of Message Framing On Breast Self-Examination Attitudes, Intentions, And Behavior1987Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
61Scheithauer W., et al. [111]Randomised Comparison Of Combination Chemotherapy Plus Supportive Care With Supportive Care Alone In Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer1993British Medical Journal
62Fallowfield L.J., et al. [112] Psychological Outcomes Of Different Treatment Policies In Women With Early Breast Cancer Outside A Clinical Trial1990British Medical Journal
63Rutten L.J.F., et al. [113]Information Needs And Sources Of Information Among Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review Of Research (1980–2003)2005Patient Education and Counseling
64Leydon G.M., et al. [114]Cancer Patients’ Information Needs And Information Seeking Behaviour: In Depth Interview Study2000British Medical Journal
65McCorkle R., & Young K. [115]Development Of A Symptom Distress Scale.1978Cancer Nursing
66Riley V. [116]Psychoneuroendocrine Influences On Immunocompetence And Neoplasia1981Science
67Portenoy R.K., et al. [56]Breakthrough Pain: Characteristics And Impact In Patients With Cancer Pain1999Pain
68Brewer N.T., & Fazekas K.I. [117]Predictors Of HPV Vaccine Acceptability: A Theory-Informed, Systematic Review2007Preventive Medicine
69Kreuter M.W., et al. [118] Achieving Cultural Appropriateness In Health Promotion Programs: Targeted And Tailored Approaches2003Health Education and Behavior
70Miller G.E., et al. [119]Chronic Psychological Stress And The Regulation Of Pro-Inflammatory Cytokines: A Glucocorticoid-Resistance Model2002Health Psychology
71Hudson M.M., et al. [120]Health Status Of Adult Long-Term Survivors Of Childhood Cancer: A Report From The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study2003Journal of the American Medical Association
72Steineck G., et al. [121]Quality Of Life After Radical Prostatectomy Or Watchful Waiting2002New England Journal of Medicine
73Mulhern R.K., et al. [122]Late Neurocognitive Sequelae In Survivors Of Brain Tumours In Childhood2004Lancet Oncology
74Grunfeld E., et al. [123]Family Caregiver Burden: Results Of A Longitudinal Study Of Breast Cancer Patients And Their Principal Caregivers2004Canadian Medical Association Journal
75Ghezzi, P., et al. [124]Impact Of Follow-Up Testing On Survival And Health-Related Quality Of Life In Breast Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial1994Journal of the American Medical Association
76Zhang B., et al. [125]Health Care Costs In The Last Week Of Life Associations With End-Of-Life Conversations2009Archives of Internal Medicine
77Basch E., et al. [126]Symptom Monitoring With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial2016Journal of Clinical Oncology
78Hann D., et al. [127]Measurement Of Depressive Symptoms In Cancer Patients: Evaluation Of The Center For Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)1999Journal of Psychosomatic Research
79Greer S., et al. [128]Psychological Response To Breast Cancer: Effect On Outcome1979The Lancet
80Brady M.J., et al. [57]A Case For Including Spirituality In Quality Of Life Measurement In Oncology1999Psycho-Oncology
81Jacobsen P.B., et al. [129]Screening For Psychologic Distress In Ambulatory Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Evaluation Of The Distress Thermometer2005Cancer
82Blanchard C.M., et al. [130]Cancer Survivors’ Adherence To Lifestyle Behavior Recommendations And Associations With Health-Related Quality Of Life: Results From The American Cancer Society’s SCS-II2008Journal of Clinical Oncology
83Teunissen S., et al. [131]Symptom Prevalence In Patients With Incurable Cancer: A Systematic Review2007Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
84Gøtzsche P.C., & Jørgensen K. [132]Screening For Breast Cancer With Mammography2013Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
85Cella, D. [52]The Functional Assessment Of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An) Scale: A New Tool For The Assessment Of Outcomes In Cancer Anemia And Fatigue1997Seminars in Hematology
86Watson M., et al. [133]Influence Of Psychological Response On Survival In Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study1999Lancet
87Lawlor P.G., et al. [134]Occurrence, Causes, And Outcome Of Delirium In Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Prospective Study2002Archives of Internal Medicine
88Burstein H.J., et al. [135]Use Of Alternative Medicine By Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer1999New England Journal of Medicine
89Moorey S., et al. [136]The Factor Structure And Factor Stability Of The Hospital Anxiety And Depression Scale In Patients With Cancer1991British Journal of Psychiatry
90McClain C.S., et al. [137]Effect Of Spiritual Well-Being On End-Of-Life Despair In Terminally-Ill Cancer Patients2003Lancet
91Fawzy F.I., et al. [138]A Structured Psychiatric Intervention For Cancer Patients: I. Changes Over Time In Methods Of Coping And Affective Disturbance1990Archives of General Psychiatry
92Satin J.R., et al. [139]Depression As A Predictor Of Disease Progression And Mortality In Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis2009Cancer
93Novack D.H., et al. [140]Changes In Physicians’ Attitudes Toward Telling The Cancer Patient1979Journal of the American Medical Association
94Sears S.R., et al. [141]The Yellow Brick Road And The Emerald City: Benefit Finding, Positive Reappraisal Coping, And Posttraumatic Growth In Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer2003Health Psychology
95Piper B.F., et al. [142]The Revised Piper Fatigue Scale: Psychometric Evaluation In Women With Breast Cancer.1998Oncology Nursing Forum
96Spiegel D., & Giese-Davis J. [51]Depression And Cancer: Mechanisms And Disease Progression2003Biological Psychiatry
97Helgeson V.S., & Cohen S. [143]Social Support And Adjustment To Cancer: Reconciling Descriptive, Correlational, And Intervention Research1996Health Psychology
98McNeil B.J., et al. [144]Speech And Survival: Tradeoffs Between Quality And Quantity Of Life In Laryngeal Cancer1981New England Journal of Medicine
99Stanton A.L., et al. [145]Emotionally Expressive Coping Predicts Psychological And Physical Adjustment To Breast Cancer2000Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
100Doyle C., et al. [146]Nutrition And Physical Activity During And After Cancer Treatment: An American Cancer Society Guide For Informed Choices2006CA: Cancer Journal for Clinicians

References

  1. Holland, J.C. History of Psycho-Oncology: Overcoming Attitudinal and Conceptual Barriers. Psychosom. Med. 2002, 64, 206–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, Journal of Psychosocial Oncology Aims & Scope. Available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=wjpo20 (accessed on 1 July 2021).
  3. Holland, J.C. Psycho-Oncology: Overview, Obstacles and Opportunities. Psychooncology 2018, 27, 1364–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Greer, S. Psycho-oncology: Its Aims, Achievements and Future Tasks. Psycho-Oncology 1994, 3, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Agarwal, A.; Durairajanayagam, D.; Tatagari, S.; Esteves, S.C.; Harlev, A.; Henkel, R.; Roychoudhury, S.; Homa, S.; Puchalt, N.G.; Ramasamy, R.; et al. Bibliometrics: Tracking Research Impact by Selecting the Appropriate Metrics. Asian J. Androl. 2016, 18, 296–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Bornmann, L.; Marx, W.; Gasparyan, A.Y.; Kitas, G.D. Diversity, Value and Limitations of the Journal Impact Factor and Alternative Metrics. Rheumatol. Int. 2012, 32, 1861–1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kanter, S.L. Understanding the Journal’s Impact. Acad. Med. 2009, 84, 1169–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Lauer, M.S.; Danthi, N.S.; Kaltman, J.; Wu, C. Predicting Productivity Returns on Investment: Thirty Years of Peer Review, Grant Funding, and Publication of Highly Cited Papers at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Circ. Res. 2015, 117, 239–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Pritchard, A. Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics. J. Doc. 1969, 25, 348. [Google Scholar]
  10. Saracevic, T.; Perk, L.J. Ascertaining Activities in a Subject Area through Bibliometric Analysis. Application to Library Literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1973, 24, 120–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Donohue, J.C. A Bibliometric Analysis of Certain Information Science Literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1972, 23, 313–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Campbell, D.; Picard-Aitken, M.; Côté, G.; Caruso, J.; Valentim, R.; Edmonds, S.; Williams, G.T.; Macaluso, B.; Robitaille, J.P.; Bastien, N.; et al. Bibliometrics as a Performance Measurement Tool for Research Evaluation: The Case of Research Funded by the National Cancer Institute of Canada. Am. J. Eval. 2010, 31, 66–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Walsh, C.; Lydon, S.; Byrne, D.; Madden, C.; Fox, S.; O’Connor, P. The 100 Most Cited Articles on Healthcare Simulation: A Bibliometric Review. Simul. Healthc. 2018, 13, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Arul, K.; Mesfin, A. The Top 100 Cited Papers in Health Care Disparities: A Bibliometric Analysis. J. Racial Ethn. Heal. Disparities 2017, 4, 854–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kim, H.J.; Yoon, D.Y.; Kim, E.S.; Lee, K.; Bae, J.S.; Lee, J.H. The 100 most-cited articles in neuroimaging: A bibliometric analysis. NeuroImage 2016, 139, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kim, Y.; Yoon, D.Y.; Kim, J.E.; Park, K.M.; Lee, J.H.; Song, H.K.; Bae, J.S. Citation Classics in Stroke: The Top-100 Cited Articles on Hemorrhagic Stroke. Eur. Neurol. 2017, 78, 210–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Yeung, A.W.K.; Goto, T.K.; Leung, W.K. At the Leading Front of Neuroscience: A Bibliometric Study of the 100 Most-Cited Articles. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2017, 11, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Yeung, A.W.K.; Goto, T.K.; Leung, W.K. Readability of the 100 Most-Cited Neuroimaging Papers Assessed by Common Readability Formulae. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yeung, A.W.K. The 100 Most Cited Papers Concerning the Insular Cortex of the Brain: A Bibliometric Analysis. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Pan, Y.T.; Zhang, Y.H.; Gao, X.P.; Jia, J.; Gao, J.P.; Ma, Z. Scientific Progress Regarding Neural Regeneration in the Web of Science a 10-Year Bibliometric Analysis. Neural Regen. Res. 2013, 8, 3449–3454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Hoppen, N.H.F.; Vanz, S.A.d.S. Neurosciences in Brazil: A Bibliometric Study of Main Characteristics, Collaboration and Citations. Scientometrics 2016, 109, 121–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dodier, O. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Recovered Memory Controversy in the 21st Century. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2019, 33, 571–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Harrington, S.E.; Stout, N.L.; Hile, E.; Fisher, M.I.; Eden, M.; Marchese, V.; Pfalzer, L.A. Cancer Rehabilitation Publications (2008-2018) with a Focus on Physical Function: A Scoping Review. Phys. Ther. 2020, 100, 363–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Stout, N.L.; Alfano, C.M.; Belter, C.W.; Nitkin, R.; Cernich, A.; Siegel, K.L.; Chan, L. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Landscape of Cancer Rehabilitation Research (1992–2016). J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 2018, 815–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Wang, X.; Guo, J.; Gu, D.; Yang, Y.; Yang, X.; Zhu, K. Tracking Knowledge Evolution, Hotspots and Future Directions of Emerging Technologies in Cancers Research: A Bibliometrics Review. J. Cancer 2019, 10, 2643–2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Wang, K.; Feng, C.; Li, M.; Pei, Q.; Li, Y.; Zhu, H.; Song, X.; Pei, H.; Tan, F. A Bibliometric Analysis of 23,492 Publications on Rectal Cancer by Machine Learning: Basic Medical Research Is Needed. Therap. Adv. Gastroenterol. 2020, 13, 175628482093459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Glynn, R.W.; Chin, J.Z.; Kerin, M.J.; Sweeney, K.J. Representation of Cancer in the Medical Literature—A Bibliometric Analysis. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e13902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Kamdem, J.P.; Duarte, A.E.; Ibrahim, M.; Lukong, K.E.; Barros, L.M.; Roeder, T. Bibliometric Analysis of Personalized Humanized Mouse and Drosophila Models for Effective Combinational Therapy in Cancer Patients. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Mol. Basis Dis. 2020, 1866, 165880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Montazeri, A. Health-Related Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Patients: A Bibliographic Review of the Literature from 1974 to 2007. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2008, 27, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Landreneau, J.P.; Weaver, M.; Delaney, C.P.; Aminian, A.; Dimick, J.B.; Lillemoe, K.D.; Schauer, P.R. The 100 Most Cited Papers in the History of the American Surgical Association. Ann. Surg. 2020, 271, 663–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Müller, M.; Gloor, B.; Candinas, D.; Malinka, T. The 100 Most-Cited Articles in Visceral Surgery: A Systematic Review. Dig. Surg. 2016, 33, 509–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shuaib, W.; Acevedo, J.N.; Khan, M.S.; Santiago, L.J.; Gaeta, T.J. The Top 100 Cited Articles Published in Emergency Medicine Journals. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2015, 33, 1066–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nason, G.J.; Tareen, F.; Mortell, A. The Top 100 Cited Articles in Urology: An Update. J. Can. Urol. Assoc. 2013, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Web of Science. Web of Science Core Collection. Available online: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/web-of-science-core-collection/ (accessed on 3 April 2020).
  35. Cochrane Community. Covidence. Available online: https://community.cochrane.org/help/tools-and-software/covidence (accessed on 2 March 2020).
  36. Kellermeyer, L.; Harnke, B.; Knight, S. Covidence and Rayyan. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2018, 106, 580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Macdonald, M.; Martin Misener, R.; Weeks, L.; Helwig, M. Covidence vs Excel for the Title and Abstract Review Stage of a Systematic Review. Int. J. Evid. Based. Healthc. 2016, 14, 200–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lang-Rollin, I.; Berberich, G. Psycho-Oncology. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 2018, 20, 13. [Google Scholar]
  39. Plusquellec, P.; Denault, V. The 1000 Most Cited Papers on Visible Nonverbal Behavior: A Bibliometric Analysis. J. Nonverbal Behav. 2018, 42, 347–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cella, D.F.; Tulsky, D.S.; Gray, G.; Sarafian, B.; Linn, E.; Bonomi, A.; Silberman, M.; Yellen, S.B.; Winicour, P.; Brannon, J.; et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale: Development and Validation of the General Measure. J. Clin. Oncol. 1993, 11, 570–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Aaronson, N.K.; Ahmedzai, S.; Bergman, B.; Bullinger, M.; Cull, A.; Duez, N.J.; Filiberti, A.; Flechtner, H.; Fleishman, S.B.; Haes, J.C.; et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A Quality-of-Life Instrument for Use in International Clinical Trials in Oncology. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1993, 85, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Cleeland, C.S.; Ryan, K.M. Pain Assessment: Global Use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann. Acad. Med. Singapore 1994, 23, 129–138. [Google Scholar]
  43. Taylor, S.E. Adjustment to Threatening Events: A Theory of Cognitive Adaptation. Am. Psychol. 1983, 38, 1161–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Brown, K.W.; Ryan, R.M. The Benefits of Being Present: Mindfulness and Its Role in Psychological Well-Being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 84, 822–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Zabora, J.; Brintzenhofeszoc, K.; Curbow, B.; Hooker, C.; Piantadosi, S. The Prevalence of Psychological Distress by Cancer Site. Psychooncology 2001, 10, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Temel, J.S.; Greer, J.A.; Muzikansky, A.; Gallagher, E.R.; Admane, S.; Jackson, V.A.; Dahlin, C.M.; Blinderman, C.D.; Jacobsen, J.; Pirl, W.F.; et al. Early Palliative Care for Patients with Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 363, 733–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Spiegel, D.; Kraemer, H.C.; Bloom, J.R.; Gottheil, E. Effect of Psychosocial Treatment on Survival of Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer. Lancet 1989, 334, 888–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sanda, M.G.; Dunn, R.L.; Michalski, J.; Sandler, H.M.; Northouse, L.; Hembroff, L.; Lin, X.; Greenfield, T.K.; Litwin, M.S.; Saigal, C.S.; et al. Quality of Life and Satisfaction with Outcome among Prostate-Cancer Survivors. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 358, 1250–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Wright, A.A.; Zhang, B.; Ray, A.; Mack, J.W.; Trice, E.; Balboni, T.; Mitchell, S.L.; Jackson, V.A.; Block, S.D.; Maciejewski, P.K.; et al. Associations between End-of-Life Discussions, Patient Mental Health, Medical Care near Death, and Caregiver Bereavement Adjustment. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2008, 300, 1665–1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Spiegel, D.; Bloom, J.R.; Yalom, I. Group Support for Patients with Metastatic Cancer: A Randomized Prospective Outcome Study. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 1981, 38, 527–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Spiegel, D.; Giese-Davis, J. Depression and cancer: Mechanisms and disease progression. Biol. Psychol. 2003, 54, 269–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cella, D. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An) Scale: A New Tool for the Assessment of Outcomes in Cancer Anemia and Fatigue. Semin. Hematol. 1997, 34, 13–19. [Google Scholar]
  53. Litwin, M.S.; Hays, R.D.; Fink, A.; Ganz, P.A.; Leake, B.; Leach, G.E.; Brook, R.H. Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Men Treated for Localized Prostate Cancer. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1995, 273, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Litwin, M.S.; Hays, R.D.; Fink, A.; Ganz, P.A.; Leake, B.; Brook, R.H. The UCLA Prostate Cancer Index: Development, Reliability, and Validity of a Health-Related Quality of Life Measure. Med. Care 1998, 36, 1002–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Portenoy, R.K.; Thaler, H.T.; Kornblith, A.B.; McCarthy Lepore, J.; Friedlander-Klar, H.; Kiyasu, E.; Sobel, K.; Coyle, N.; Kemeny, N.; Norton, L.; et al. The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale: An Instrument for the Evaluation of Symptom Prevalence, Characteristics and Distress. Eur. J. Cancer 1994, 30, 1326–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Portenoy, R.K.; Payne, D.; Jacobsen, P. Breakthrough Pain: Characteristics and Impact in Patients with Cancer Pain. Pain 1999, 81, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Brady, M.J.; Peterman, A.H.; Fitchett, G.; Mo, M.; Cella, D. A Case for Including Spirituality in Quality of Life Measurement in Oncology. Psychooncology. 1999, 8, 417–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Curt, G.A.; Breitbart, W.; Cella, D.; Groopman, J.E.; Horning, S.J.; Itri, L.M.; Johnson, D.H.; Miaskowski, C.; Scherr, S.L.; Portenoy, R.K.; et al. Impact of Cancer-Related Fatigue on the Lives of Patients: New Findings From the Fatigue Coalition. Oncologist 2000, 5, 353–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Peterman, A.H.; Fitchett, G.; Brady, M.J.; Hernandez, L.; Cella, D. Measuring Spiritual Well-Being in People with Cancer: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy—Spiritual Well-Being Scale (FACIT-Sp). Ann. Behav. Med. 2002, 24, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Vogelzang, N.J.; Breitbart, W.; Cella, D.; Curt, G.A.; Groopman, J.E.; Horning, S.J.; Itri, L.M.; Johnson, D.H.; Saherr, S.L.; Portenoy, R.K. Patient, Caregiver, and Oncologist Perceptions of Cancer-Related Fatigue: Results of a Tripart Assessment Survey. Semin. Hematol. 1997, 34, 4–12. [Google Scholar]
  61. Yellen, S.B.; Cella, D.F.; Webster, K.; Blendowski, C.; Kaplan, E. Measuring Fatigue and Other Anemia-Related Symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Measurement System. J. Pain Symptom Manage. 1997, 13, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Cordova, M.J.; Cunningham, L.L.C.; Carlson, C.R.; Andrykowski, M.A. Posttraumatic Growth Following Breast Cancer: A Controlled Comparison Study. Heal. Psychol. 2001, 20, 176–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Holland, J.C.; Bultz, B.D. The NCCN Guideline for Distress Management: A Case for Making Distress the Sixth Vital Sign. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 2007, 5, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K.; Robles, T.F.; Heffner, K.L.; Loving, T.J.; Glaser, R. Psycho-Oncology and Cancer: Psychoneuroimmunology and Cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2002, 13, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hyland, K. Self-Citation and Self-Reference: Credibility and Promotion in Academic Publication. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2003, 54, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Cronin, B. Bibliometrics and beyond: Some Thoughts on Web-Based Citation Analysis. J. Inf. Sci. 2001, 27, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Van Raan, A. The Use of Bibliometric Analysis in Research Performance Assessment and Monitoring of Interdisciplinary Scientific Developments. TATuP 2003, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Moustafa, K. Aberration of the Citation. Account. Res. 2016, 23, 230–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Anyi, K.W.U.; Zainab, A.N.; Anuar, N.B. Bibliometric Studies on Single Journals: A Review. Malaysian J. Libr. Inf. Sci. 2009, 14, 17–55. [Google Scholar]
  70. Derogatis, L.R.; Morrow, G.R.; Fetting, J.; Penman, D.; Piasetsky, S.; Schmale, A.M.; Henrichs, M.; Carnicke, C.L.M. The Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders among Cancer Patients. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1983, 249, 751–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Carver, C.S.; Pozo, C.; Harris, S.D.; Noriega, V.; Scheier, M.F.; Robinson, D.S.; Ketcham, A.S.; Moffat, F.L.; Clark, K.C. How Coping Mediates the Effect of Optimism on Distress: A Study of Women With Early Stage Breast Cancer. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1993, 65, 375–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Spitzer, W.O.; Dobson, A.J.; Hall, J.; Chesterman, E.; Levi, J.; Shepherd, R.; Battista, R.N.; Catchlove, B.R. Measuring the Quality of Life of Cancer Patients. A Concise QL-Index for Use by Physicians. J. Chronic Dis. 1981, 34, 585–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Holmes, M.D.; Chen, W.Y.; Feskanich, D.; Kroenke, C.H.; Colditz, G.A. Physical Activity and Survival after Breast Cancer Diagnosis. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2005, 293, 2479–2486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Murthy, V.H.; Krumholz, H.M.; Gross, C.P. Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials: Race-, Sex-, and Age-Based Disparities. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2004, 291, 2720–2726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Serlin, R.C.; Mendoza, T.R.; Nakamura, Y.; Edwards, K.R.; Cleeland, C.S. When Is Cancer Pain Mild, Moderate or Severe? Grading Pain Severity by Its Interference with Function. Pain 1995, 61, 277–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wei, J.T.; Dunn, R.L.; Litwin, M.S.; Sandler, H.M.; Sanda, M.G. Development and Validation of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) for Comprehensive Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life in Men with Prostate Cancer. Urology 2000, 56, 899–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Cassileth, B.R.; Zupkis, R.V.; Sutton-Smith, K.; March, V. Information and Participation Preferences among Cancer Patients. Ann. Intern. Med. 1980, 92, 832–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Degner, L.F.; Kristjanson, L.J.; Bowman, D.; Sloan, J.A.; Carriere, K.C.; O’Neil, J.; Bilodeau, B.; Watson, P.; Mueller, B. Information Needs and Decisional Preferences in Women with Breast Cancer. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1997, 277, 1485–1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bakitas, M.; Lyons, K.D.; Hegel, M.T.; Balan, S.; Brokaw, F.C.; Seville, J.; Hull, J.G.; Li, Z.; Tosteson, T.D.; Byock, I.R.; et al. Effects of a Palliative Care Intervention on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Advanced Cancer: The Project ENABLE II Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2009, 302, 741–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Fawzy, F.I.; Fawzy, N.W.; Hyun, C.S.; Elashoff, R.; Guthrie, D.; Fahey, J.L.; Morton, D.L. Malignant Melanoma: Effects of an Early Structured Psychiatric Intervention, Coping, and Affective State on Recurrence and Survival 6 Years Later. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 1993, 50, 681–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Schipper, H.; Clinch, J.; McMurray, A.; Levitt, M. Measuring the Quality of Life of Cancer Patients: The Functional Living Index-Cancer: Development and Validation. J. Clin. Oncol. 1984, 2, 472–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zech, D.F.J.; Grond, S.; Lynch, J.; Hertel, D.; Lehmann, K.A. Validation of World Health Organization Guidelines for Cancer Pain Relief: A 10-Year Prospective Study. Pain 1995, 63, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wolfe, J.; Grier, H.E.; Klar, N.; Levin, S.B.; Ellenbogen, J.M.; Salem-Schatz, S.; Emanuel, E.J.; Weeks, J.C. Symptoms and Suffering at the End of Life in Children with Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2000, 342, 326–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Shacham, S. A Shortened Version of the Profile of Mood States. J. Pers. Assess. 1983, 47, 305–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Degner, L.F.; Sloan, J.A.J.A. Decision making during serious illness: What role do patients really want to play? J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1992, 45, 941–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Speck, R.M.; Courneya, K.S.; Mâsse, L.C.; Duval, S.; Schmitz, K.H. An Update of Controlled Physical Activity Trials in Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Cancer Surviv. 2010, 4, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Foley, K.M. The Treatment of Cancer Pain. N. Engl. J. Med. 1985, 313, 84–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Demark-Wahnefried, W.; Aziz, N.M.; Rowland, J.H.; Pinto, B.M. Riding the crest of the teachable moment: Promoting long-term health after the diagnosis of cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005, 23, 5814–5830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Burgess, C.; Cornelius, V.; Love, S.; Graham, J.; Richards, M.; Ramirez, A. Depression and Anxiety in Women with Early Breast Cancer: Five Year Observational Cohort Study. Br. Med. J. 2005, 330, 702–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  90. Calman, K.C. Quality of Life in Cancer Patients—An Hypothesis. J. Med. Ethics 1984, 10, 124–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Bower, J.E.; Ganz, P.A.; Desmond, K.A.; Rowland, J.H.; Meyerowitz, B.E.; Belin, T.R. Fatigue in Breast Cancer Survivors: Occurrence, Correlates, and Impact on Quality of Life. J. Clin. Oncol. 2000, 18, 743–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Reiche, E.M.V.; Nunes, S.O.V.; Morimoto, H.K. Stress, Depression, the Immune System, and Cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2004, 5, 617–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zimmermann, C.; Swami, N.; Krzyzanowska, M.; Hannon, B.; Leighl, N.; Oza, A.; Moore, M.; Rydall, A.; Rodin, G.; Tannock, I.; et al. Early Palliative Care for Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial. Lancet 2014, 383, 1721–1730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Rock, C.L.; Doyle, C.; Demark-Wahnefried, W.; Meyerhardt, J.; Courneya, K.S.; Schwartz, A.L.; Bandera, E.V.; Hamilton, K.K.; Grant, B.; McCullough, M.; et al. Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines for Cancer Survivors. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2012, 62, 242–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Meyer, T.J.; Mark, M.M. Effects of Psychosocial Interventions with Adult Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Experiments. Heal. Psychol. 1995, 14, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Breitbart, W.; Rosenfeld, B.; Pessin, H.; Kaim, M.; Funesti-Esch, J.; Galietta, M.; Nelson, C.J.; Brescia, R. Depression, Hopelessness, and Desire for Hastened Death in Terminally Ill Patients with Cancer. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2000, 284, 2907–2911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Antoni, M.H.; Lehman, J.M.; Kilbourn, K.M.; Boyers, A.E.; Culver, J.L.; Alferi, S.M.; Yount, S.E.; McGregor, B.A.; Arena, P.L.; Harris, S.D.; et al. Cognitive-Behavioral Stress Management Intervention Decreases the Prevalence of Depression and Enhances Benefit Finding among Women under Treatment for Early-Stage Breast Cancer. Health Psychol. 2001, 20, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Detmar, S.B.; Muller, M.J.; Schornagel, J.H.; Wever, L.D.V.; Aaronson, N.K. Health-Related Quality-of-Life Assessments and Patient-Physician Communication: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2002, 288, 3027–3034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. De Haes, M.; Van Knippenberg, F.C.; Neijt, J.P. Measuring Psychological and Physical Distress in Cancer Patients: Structure and Application of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. Br. J. Cancer 1990, 62, 1034–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. McNeely, M.L.; Campbell, K.L.; Rowe, B.H.; Klassen, T.P.; Mackey, J.R.; Courneya, K.S. Effects of exercise on breast cancer patients and survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 2006, 175, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Glimelius, B.; Ekström, K.; Hoffman, K.; Graf, W.; Sjödén, P.O.; Haglund, U.; Svensson, C.; Enander, L.K.; Linné, T.; Sellström, H.; et al. Randomized Comparison between Chemotherapy plus Best Supportive Care with Best Supportive Care in Advanced Gastric Cancer. Ann. Oncol. 1997, 8, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Goodwin, P.J.; Leszcz, M.; Ennis, M.; Koopmans, J.; Vincent, L.; Guther, H.; Drysdale, E.; Hundleby, M.; Chochinov, H.M.; Navarro, M.; et al. The Effect of Group Psychosocial Support on Survival in Metastatic Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2001, 345, 1719–1726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lerman, C.; Narod, S.; Schulman, K.; Hughes, C.; Gomez-Caminero, A.; Bonney, G.; Gold, K.; Trock, B.; Main, D.; Lynch, J.; et al. BRCA1 Testing in Families with Hereditary Breast-Ovarian Cancer: A Prospective Study of Patient Decision Making and Outcomes. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1996, 275, 1885–1892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Speca, M.; Carlson, L.E.; Goodey, E.; Angen, M. A Randomized, Wait-List Controlled Clinical Trial: The Effect of a Mindfulness Meditation-Based Stress Reduction Program on Mood and Symptoms of Stress in Cancer Outpatients. Psychosom. Med. 2000, 62, 613–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Molassiotis, A.; Fernandez-Ortega, P.; Pud, D.; Ozden, G.; Scott, J.A.; Panteli, V.; Margulies, A.; Browall, M.; Magri, M.; Selvekerova, S.; et al. Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Cancer Patients: A European Survey. Ann. Oncol. 2005, 16, 655–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Taylor, S.E.; Lichtman, R.R.; Wood, J.V. Attributions, Beliefs about Control, and Adjustment to Breast Cancer. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1984, 46, 489–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Fallowfield, L.; Jenkins, V.; Farewell, V.; Saul, J.; Duffy, A.; Eves, R. Efficacy of a Cancer Research UK Communication Skills Training Model for Oncologists: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Lancet 2002, 359, 650–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Gomes, B.; Higginson, I.J. Factors Influencing Death at Home in Terminally Ill Patients with Cancer: Systematic Review. BMJ 2006, 332, 515–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Slevin, M.L.; Stubbs, L.; Plant, H.J.; Wilson, P.; Gregory, W.M.; Armes, P.J.; Downer, S.M. Attitudes to Chemotherapy: Comparing Views of Patients with Cancer with Those of Doctors, Nurses, and General Public. Br. Med. J. 1990, 300, 1458–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Meyerowitz, B.E.; Chaiken, S. The Effect of Message Framing on Breast Self-Examination Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 52, 500–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Scheithauer, W.; Rosen, H.; Kornek, G.V.; Sebesta, C.; Depisch, D. Randomised Comparison of Combination Chemotherapy plus Supportive Care with Supportive Care Alone in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Br. Med. J. 1993, 306, 752–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  112. Fallowfield, L.J.; Hall, A.; Maguire, G.P.; Baum, M. Psychological Outcomes of Different Treatment Policies in Women with Early Breast Cancer Outside a Clinical Trial. Br. Med. J. 1990, 301, 575–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  113. Rutten, L.J.; Arora, N.K.; Bakos, A.D.; Aziz, N.; Rowland, J. Information Needs and Sources of Information among Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review of Research (1980–2003). Patient Educ. Couns. 2005, 57, 250–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Leydon, G.M.; Boulton, M.; Moynihan, C.; Jones, A.; Mossman, J.; Boudioni, M.; McPherson, K. Cancer Patients’ Information Needs and Information Seeking Behaviour: In Depth Interview Study. Br. Med. J. 2000, 320, 909–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. McCorkle, R.; Young, K. Development of a Symptom Distress Scale. Cancer Nurs. 1978, 1, 373–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Riley, V. Psychoneuroendocrine Influences on Immunocompetence and Neoplasia. Science 1981, 212, 1100–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Brewer, N.T.; Fazekas, K.I. Predictors of HPV Vaccine Acceptability: A Theory-Informed, Systematic Review. Prev. Med. 2007, 45, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Kreuter, M.W.; Lukwago, S.N.; Bucholtz, D.C.; Clark, E.M.; Sanders-Thompson, V. Achieving Cultural Appropriateness in Health Promotion Programs: Targeted and Tailored Approaches. Health Educ. Behav. 2003, 30, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Miller, G.E.; Cohen, S.; Ritchey, A.K. Chronic Psychological Stress and the Regulation of Pro-Inflammatory Cytokines: A Glucocorticoid-Resistance Model. Health Psychol. 2002, 21, 531–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Hudson, M.M.; Mertens, A.C.; Yasui, Y.; Hobbie, W.; Chen, H.; Gurney, J.G.; Yeazel, M.; Recklitis, C.J.; Marina, N.; Robison, L.R.; et al. Health Status of Adult Long-Term Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2003, 290, 1583–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  121. Steineck, G.; Helgesen, F.; Adolfsson, J.; Dickman, P.W.; Johansson, J.E.; Norlén, B.J.; Holmberg, L. Quality of Life after Radical Prostatectomy or Watchful Waiting. N. Engl. J. Med. 2002, 347, 790–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Mulhern, R.K.; Merchant, T.E.; Gajjar, A.; Reddick, W.E.; Kun, L.E. Late Neurocognitive Sequelae in Survivors of Brain Tumours in Childhood. Lancet Oncol. 2004, 5, 399–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Grunfeld, E.; Coyle, D.; Whelan, T.; Clinch, J.; Reyno, L.; Earle, C.C.; Willan, A.; Viola, R.; Coristine, M.; Janz, T.; et al. Family Caregiver Burden: Results of a Longitudinal Study of Breast Cancer Patients and Their Principal Caregivers. CMAJ 2004, 170, 1795–1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Ghezzi, P.; Magnanini, S.; Rinaldini, M.; Berardi, F.; Di Biagio, G.; Testare, F.; Tavoni, N.; Schittulli, F.; D’Amico, C.; Pedicini, T.; et al. Impact of Follow-up Testing on Survival and Health-Related Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1994, 271, 1587–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Zhang, B.; Wright, A.A.; Huskamp, H.A.; Nilsson, M.E.; Maciejewski, M.L.; Earle, C.C.; Block, S.D.; Maciejewski, P.K.; Prigerson, H.G. Health Care Costs in the Last Week of Life Associations with End-of-Life Conversations. Arch. Intern. Med. 2009, 169, 480–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Basch, E.; Deal, A.M.; Kris, M.G.; Scher, H.I.; Hudis, C.A.; Sabbatini, P.; Rogak, L.; Bennett, A.V.; Dueck, A.C.; Atkinson, T.M.; et al. Symptom Monitoring with Patient-Reported Outcomes during Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 557–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Hann, D.; Winter, K.; Jacobsen, P. Measurement of Depressive Symptoms in Cancer Patients: Evaluation of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). J. Psychosom. Res. 1999, 46, 437–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Greer, S.; Morris, T.; Pettingale, K.W. Psychological Response to Breast Cancer: Effect on Outcome. Lancet 1979, 314, 785–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Jacobsen, P.B.; Donovan, K.A.; Trask, P.C.; Fleishman, S.B.; Zabora, J.; Baker, F.; Holland, J.C. Screening for Psychologic Distress in Ambulatory Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Evaluation of the Distress Thermometer. Cancer 2005, 103, 1494–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Blanchard, C.M.; Courneya, K.S.; Stein, K. Cancer Survivors’ Adherence to Lifestyle Behavior Recommendations and Associations with Health-Related Quality of Life: Results from the American Cancer Society’s SCS-II. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 2198–2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Teunissen, S.C.; Wesker, W.; Kruitwagen, C.; de Haes, H.C.; Voest, E.E.; de Graeff, A. Symptom Prevalence in Patients with Incurable Cancer: A Systematic Review. JPSM 2007, 34, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Gøtzsche, P.C.; Jørgensen, K.J. Screening for Breast Cancer with Mammography. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev 2013, 2013, CD001877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Watson, M.; Haviland, J.S.; Greer, S.; Davidson, J.; Bliss, J.M. Influence of Psychological Response on Survival in Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Lancet 1999, 354, 1331–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. Lawlor, P.G.; Gagnon, B.; Mancini, I.L.; Pereira, J.L.; Hanson, J.; Suarez-Almazor, M.E.; Bruera, E.D. Occurrence, Causes, and Outcome of Delirium in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Prospective Study. Arch. Intern. Med. 2002, 160, 786–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Burstein, H.J.; Gelber, S.; Guadagnoli, E.; Weeks, J.C. Use of Alternative Medicine by Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999, 340, 1733–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Moorey, S.; Greer, S.; Watson, M.; Gorman, C.; Rowden, L.; Tunmore, R.; Robertson, B.; Bliss, J. The Factor Structure and Factor Stability of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in Patients with Cancer. Br. J. Psychiatry 1991, 158, 255–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. McClain, C.S.; Rosenfeld, B.; Breitbart, W. Effect of Spiritual Well-Being on End-of-Life Despair in Terminally-Ill Cancer Patients. Lancet 2003, 361, 1603–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Fawzy, F.I.; Cousins, N.; Fawzy, N.W.; Kemeny, M.E.; Elashoff, R.; Morton, D. A Structured Psychiatric Intervention for Cancer Patients: I. Changes over Time in Methods of Coping and Affective Disturbance. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 1990, 47, 720–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Satin, J.R.; Linden, W.; Phillips, M.J. Depression as a Predictor of Disease Progression and Mortality in Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis. Cancer 2009, 115, 5349–5361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Novack, D.H.; Plumer, R.; Smith, R.L.; Morrow, G.R.; Ochitill, H.; Bennett, J.M. Changes in Physicians’ Attitudes Toward Telling the Cancer Patient. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1979, 241, 897–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Sears, S.R.; Stanton, A.L.; Danoff-Burg, S. The Yellow Brick Road and the Emerald City: Benefit Finding, Positive Reappraisal Coping, and Posttraumatic Growth in Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer. Health Psychol. 2003, 22, 487–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Piper, B.F.; Dibble, S.L.; Dodd, M.J.; Weiss, M.C.; Slaughter, R.E.; Paul, S.M. The Revised Piper Fatigue Scale: Psychometric Evaluation in Women with Breast Cancer. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 1998, 25, 677–684. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  143. Helgeson, V.S.; Cohen, S. Social Support and Adjustment to Cancer: Reconciling Descriptive, Correlational, and Intervention Research. Health Psychol. 1996, 15, 135–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Mcneil, B.J.; Weichselbaum, R.; Pauker, S.G. Speech and Survival: Tradeoffs between Quality and Quantity of Life in Laryngeal Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 1981, 305, 982–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Stanton, A.L.; Danoff-Burg, S.; Cameron, C.L.; Bishop, M.; Collins, C.A.; Kirk, S.B.; Sworowski, L.A.; Twillman, R. Emotionally Expressive Coping Predicts Psychological and Physical Adjustment to Breast Cancer. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2000, 68, 875–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Doyle, C.; Kushi, L.H.; Byers, T.; Courneya, K.S.; Demark-Wahnefried, W.; Grant, B.; McTiernan, A.; Rock, C.L.; Thompson, C.; Gansler, T.; et al. Nutrition and Physical Activity During and After Cancer Treatment: An American Cancer Society Guide for Informed Choices. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2006, 56, 323–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Healthcare 09 01008 g001 550
Figure 1. The PRISMA flowchart of study selection.
Figure 1. The PRISMA flowchart of study selection.
Healthcare 09 01008 g001
Healthcare 09 01008 g002 550
Figure 2. Word cloud of the words used in the titles of the 100 included studies.
Figure 2. Word cloud of the words used in the titles of the 100 included studies.
Healthcare 09 01008 g002
Healthcare 09 01008 g003 550
Figure 3. Publication trends for the 100 included publications.
Figure 3. Publication trends for the 100 included publications.
Healthcare 09 01008 g003
Healthcare 09 01008 g004 550
Figure 4. Publications by year for the terms “psychosocial oncology” and “psycho-oncology” in Scopus.
Figure 4. Publications by year for the terms “psychosocial oncology” and “psycho-oncology” in Scopus.
Healthcare 09 01008 g004
Table
Table 1. Study characteristics of the top 100 published articles.
Table 1. Study characteristics of the top 100 published articles.
Study CharacteristicsFrequency Citations
(%)Mean ± SDRange
1. Country of Origin
United States66966.83 ± 806.81491–4667
United Kingdom12635 ± 87.44518–801
Canada10667 ± 132.54512–909
The Netherlands42615.75 ± 3954.77541–8547
Germany2768.5 ± 102.53696–841
Sweden2627.5 ± 75.66574–681
Australia1-1159
Austria1-605
Brazil1-723
Denmark1-532
2. Publication Type
Article80925.23 ± 992.84486–8451
Review paper181044.5 ± 1184.88500–4565
Conference paper2600 ± 97.58531–669
3. Study Type
Tool development/evaluation211347.10 ± 1811.02505–8451
Observational (cross-sectional)20782.05 ± 287.63500–1369
Observational (prospective cohort)17716.35 ± 303.22488–1549
Review (non-systematic)121045.75 ± 1168.71486–4565
Intervention (RCT)11906 ± 970.03486–3824
Intervention (non-RCT)10903.5 ± 407.36511–1782
Review (systematic/meta-analysis)9619.89 ± 96.27507–767
4. Global Subject Topic
Psychological well-being14758.93 ± 371.98488–1862
Quality of life141556 ± 2142.43555–8451
Psychological distress/Mental health12892.33 ± 446.91517–1782
Patient–physician communication10764.70 ± 287.31507–1480
Symptom prevalence 10672.80 ± 181.95505–1079
Health promotion/Cancer prevention6754.83 ± 218.82486–1153
Palliative/Supportive care61193.50 ± 1295.41511–3824
Psychoneuroimmunology6570.83 ± 79.56504–715
Pain51220.40 ± 944.66583–2885
Patient treatment choices 4573.75 ± 73.89500–656
Mindfulness22615 ± 2757.72665–4565
Psychological and physical health outcomes2627.50 ± 77.01573–682
Survivorship2696.50 ± 221.32540–853
Family/system outcomes1-566
5. Cancer Type
Mixed cancer population 36907.33 ± 832.36486–4565
Breast25757.08 ± 369.68488–1862
Advanced/terminal15768.92 ± 284.83511–1480
Undefined13890.15 ± 621.50507–2885
Prostate5916.2 ± 385.48571–1549
Lung26137.5 ± 3271.783824–8451
Malignant melanoma2682 ± 241.83511–853
Brain 1-569
Cervical1-580
Gastric1-680
Laryngeal1-500
Colorectal1 603
6. Population
Adult 97944.14 ± 1021.61486–8451
Child3653.33 ± 133.13573–807
Table
Table 2. Journals that have published the highest-cited articles as listed in Scopus.
Table 2. Journals that have published the highest-cited articles as listed in Scopus.
JournalFrequency (%)Sum
(No. Citations)		Mean ± SD
(No. Citations)		Range
(No. Citations)
Journal of the American Medical Association1512,823854.87 ± 303.16507–1480
New England Journal of Medicine892131151.63 ± 1130.83500–3824
Lancet713,1581879.71 ± 2932.52511–8451
British Medical Journal63773628.83 ± 54.09597–738
Health Psychology63591598.5 ± 85.11500–695
Journal of Clinical Oncology670561176 ± 1219.80540–3655
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology470381759.5 ± 1891.73605–4565
Archives of General Psychiatry32062687.33 ± 171.25511–853
Pain32458819.33 ± 227.14583–1036
Annals of Oncology21336668 ± 16.97656–680
Archives of Internal Medicine21088544 ± 26.87525–563
Canadian Medical Association Journal21247623.5 ± 81.32566–681
Cancer21055527.5 ± 28.99507–548
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management21616808 ± 383.25537–1079
Lancet Oncology21284642 ± 103.24569–715
Psycho-Oncology221661083 ± 746.70555–1611
Seminars in Haematology21200600 ± 97.58531–669
CA: Cancer Journal for Clinicians21188594 ± 152.74486–702
Table
Table 3. The 10 highest-cited publications in psycho-oncology.
Table 3. The 10 highest-cited publications in psycho-oncology.
RankAuthor and YearCitationsDescription
1Aaronson et al. 1993 8451An assessment of the EORTC QLQ-C30 quality of life psychometric tool.
2Brown and Ryan 20034565An overview of the role of mindfulness in psychological well-being and a prospective mindfulness-based intervention for early-stage cancer patients.
3Temel et al. 2010 3824An RCT where newly diagnosed patients with metastatic lung cancer were randomised to receive either early palliative care integrated with standard oncologic care/standard oncologic care.
4Cella et al. 1993 3655The development and assessment of the FACT quality of life psychometric tool.
5Cleeland and Ryan 1994 2885The development of the BPI pain psychometric tool.
6Taylor 1983 1862A review of psychological adjustment to breast cancer diagnosis.
7Spiegel et al. 1989 1782A prospective controlled trial where patients with metastatic breast cancer were randomised to psychosocial group-based intervention and standard oncologic care/standard oncologic care.
8Zabora et al. 2001 1611A cross-sectional observational study of psychological distress prevalence and comparison by cancer site.
9Sanda et al. 2008 1549A prospective cohort study identifying determinants of quality of life and satisfaction among prostate cancer survivors.
10Wright et al. 20081480A longitudinal prospective cohort study of patients with advanced cancer and families to determine the impact of end-of-life patient–physician communication on patient/family outcomes.
Table
Table 4. Authors who contributed three or more of the 100 most-cited psycho-oncology articles.
Table 4. Authors who contributed three or more of the 100 most-cited psycho-oncology articles.
AuthorTotal Articles
(n)		Role of Author in Total
Articles		Citation Count
±
SD
First and Corresponding AuthorCo-Author
Cella, D.7251162.29 ± 1115.27
Courneya, K.S.505635.2 ± 117.53
Breitbart, W.413664.5 ± 115.30
Litwin, M.S.4221002.5 ± 385.32
Portenoy, R.K.422761.75 ± 183.05
Demark-Wahnefried, W.312642.67 ± 137.00
Ganz, P.A. 303740.67 ± 102.26
Greer, S.312534 ± 20.66
Sloan, J.A. 303747.67 ± 173.62
Spiegel, D.330994.67 ± 688.72
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fox, S.; Lynch, J.; D’Alton, P.; Carr, A. Psycho-Oncology: A Bibliometric Review of the 100 Most-Cited Articles. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1008. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9081008

AMA Style

Fox S, Lynch J, D’Alton P, Carr A. Psycho-Oncology: A Bibliometric Review of the 100 Most-Cited Articles. Healthcare. 2021; 9(8):1008. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9081008

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fox, Susan, Julie Lynch, Paul D’Alton, and Alan Carr. 2021. "Psycho-Oncology: A Bibliometric Review of the 100 Most-Cited Articles" Healthcare 9, no. 8: 1008. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9081008

APA Style

Fox, S., Lynch, J., D’Alton, P., & Carr, A. (2021). Psycho-Oncology: A Bibliometric Review of the 100 Most-Cited Articles. Healthcare, 9(8), 1008. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9081008

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop