Study analysis · Nature · 2015
A field studying tiny bubbles in melanoma grew 4100% — but the world's top publishers barely collaborate.
A review of 288 papers found research on extracellular vesicles in skin melanoma grew from 1 paper in 2005 to 42 in 2020 — a 4100% relative jump — with the US and China leading but rarely working together.
Overview
What the study found
The study in plain English — the bottom line, every takeaway we extracted, and what to do with them.
In simple terms
This study is like a survey of all the science articles about tiny bubbles from melanoma cells. It shows which topics are popular and how the research field is growing. But it doesn't test whether those bubbles actually cause cancer to spread.
What’s the bottom line?
Scientists looked at all papers from 2005 to 2025 about tiny bubbles called extracellular vesicles in skin melanoma. They found the field grew a lot, led by the US and China, but researchers do not collaborate much across countries.
How strong is this study?
The researchers searched three big databases and used a standard computer program to map the articles. However, they only looked at English papers and didn't check if each study was done well, so it's a good map of the field but not proof about what works in patients.
0 / 100
- COI disclosureconflicts of interest not disclosed
- Data availabilitydata not shared
- Code availabilitycode not shared
19 / 100
- Randomizationnot randomized
- Blindingnot blinded
- Control groupno control group
- Sample size (n=288)+15.3/20
- Follow-upno follow-up reported
100 / 100
0 / 100
- P-valuesno p-values reported
- Effect sizeno effect size reported
- Confidence intervalsno confidence intervals
- Pre-registrationnot pre-registered
Each component is scored out of 100 and then capped by the study design — a case series cannot reach the ceiling a randomised trial can, however well it is reported.
Where it sits
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 527 / 100
Probability of being correct
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort studies. They sit above a single cohort study but below a single randomized trial, because the underlying evidence is still observational.
This design cannot establish causation — the findings describe an association, not a cause. This is a bibliometric systematic review of publications on extracellular vesicles in cutaneous melanoma. It maps research trends, citation patterns, and thematic evolution but does not test causal relationships between EVs and clinical outcomes. Therefore, it cannot establish causation.
COI Unknown
Could not determine conflict of interest status
No COI or funding statement is present in the provided excerpt, and the text appears truncated; therefore conflicts of interest cannot be assessed.
The provided text is truncated and does not include a conflict of interest, funding, or author contribution section. No industry funding or author COI can be identified from the available text.
Key takeaways
- 01
The number of papers per year rose 4100% relative from 1 in 2005 to 42 in 2020 (absolute increase 41 papers/year).
- 02
The US published 82 of 288 papers (27.8% absolute share), China 49 (16.61%), Italy 41 (13.9%).
- 03
In 2021, 33 papers got 3,620 citations.
- 04
China's international collaboration rate was 2.2%, US 15.5%.
- 05
In absolute terms, the field went from about 1 paper per year to about 42 per year.
- 06
The US contributed about 28 of every 100 papers.
- 07
Most countries worked alone; only about 2 in 100 Chinese papers and 15 in 100 US papers involved international collaboration.
- 08
These numbers describe research activity, not whether the science is correct.
Surprising findings
- China is the second most productive country but has the lowest international collaboration rate at 2.2%, compared with the US at 15.5%.High publication output often implies a globally integrated research community, but here volume and collaboration diverge sharply.
- The field grew 4100% relative from 2005 to 2020, but the absolute increase was only 41 papers per year — from 1 to 42 publications.A huge percentage sounds massive, but the absolute numbers show the field is still relatively small.
- In 2021, just 33 publications received 3,620 citations — an average of about 110 citations per paper that year.A tiny number of papers can dominate citation metrics, skewing perceptions of a field's impact.
- This bibliometric review explicitly cannot assess methodological quality or causality — it only maps research activity.Many people assume a systematic review evaluates evidence quality, but bibliometric reviews measure publication patterns, not scientific validity.
Practical takeaways
For researchers: seek international collaborators to improve reproducibility and alignment with ISEV/MISEV guidelines.
This is a bibliometric analysis, not a clinical or methodological guideline; it cannot tell you which specific collaborations will yield better science.
low confidenceFor funders: consider supporting multi-country consortia, especially in high-output but low-collaboration regions like China.
Publication volume and citations do not guarantee breakthrough impact; funding decisions should also weigh methodological rigor.
low confidenceFor science communicators: use the keyword evolution to spot emerging topics like PD-1, liquid biopsy, and immune modulation.
Citation lag means recent high-impact papers may not yet appear; database exclusions may bias the trend.
low confidenceFor patients: no immediate clinical action — this study maps research trends, not treatment efficacy or diagnostic accuracy.
Extracellular vesicle biomarkers are still experimental; do not change care based on this review.
low confidenceWhy this study matters
From 1 paper to 42: a 4100% relative explosion
The bibliometric review found annual output rose 4100% relative from 1 publication in 2005 to 42 in 2020 — an absolute increase of 41 papers per year. Output then slightly declined between 2020 and 2023, possibly due to COVID-19.
It shows how a niche scientific topic can become a hot field in just 15 years, but the absolute numbers are still small — about 42 papers per year at peak.
Citation tsunami after 2018
Citations surged beginning in 2018, peaking in 2021 when 33 publications received 3,620 citations, and remained high through 2024. The most cited paper, Peinado et al. 2012, has 3,238 total citations (ACR 231.29).
A small number of papers are doing the heavy lifting for the field's perceived impact.
US leads, China second, but collaboration is scarce
The US produced 82 of 288 publications (27.8% absolute share) and 12,898 citations; China followed with 49 (16.61%) and Italy with 41 (13.9%). Yet international collaboration was limited: China had the lowest rate at 2.2%, versus the US at 15.5%.
High output does not equal global teamwork, which could slow reproducibility and standardization.
Chongqing Medical University: the surprising institutional leader
Chongqing Medical University was the most productive institution with 45 publications, followed by University of Pittsburgh (41) and University of Louisville (36). Chongqing entered the field in 2017 — nine years after Pittsburgh — but surged dramatically between 2021 and 2024.
A relative newcomer overtook established Western institutions in publication volume.
The one paper that launched a field
Peinado et al. (2012) in Nature Medicine, 'Melanoma exosomes educate bone marrow progenitor cells toward a pro-metastatic phenotype through MET,' has 3,238 total citations and is the most cited reference within the included studies (111 citations).
It's a foundational study showing exosomes can prepare distant organs for metastasis — a key concept in cancer biology.
From lab methods to clinical hope: keyword evolution
Before 2016, keywords focused on methods like 'microparticles,' 'release,' and 'proteomic analysis.' After 2016, themes shifted to 'extracellular vesicles,' 'metastasis,' 'immune response,' 'diagnosis,' and 'biomarkers,' with recent emergence of 'PD-1,' 'migration,' and 'immunity.'
It shows a field maturing from basic characterization to translational and immunotherapy-focused questions.
Want the whole report?
Detailed mode opens the full scientific breakdown — every score component, the methodology, conflicts of interest, the evidence analysis behind each claim, and the raw study data.
Overview
What the study found
The study in plain English — the bottom line, every takeaway we extracted, and what to do with them.
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a healthcare professional. Terms
Scientists looked at all papers from 2005 to 2025 about tiny bubbles called extracellular vesicles in skin melanoma. They found the field grew a lot, led by the US and China, but researchers do not collaborate much across countries.
Research results
The number of papers per year rose 4100% relative from 1 in 2005 to 42 in 2020 (absolute increase 41 papers/year). The US published 82 of 288 papers (27.8% absolute share), China 49 (16.61%), Italy 41 (13.9%). In 2021, 33 papers got 3,620 citations. China's international collaboration rate was 2.2%, US 15.5%.
What this means - more context
In absolute terms, the field went from about 1 paper per year to about 42 per year. The US contributed about 28 of every 100 papers. Most countries worked alone; only about 2 in 100 Chinese papers and 15 in 100 US papers involved international collaboration. These numbers describe research activity, not whether the science is correct.
To map global research trends, impact, and thematic evolution of extracellular vesicle research in cutaneous melanoma from 2005 to 2025.
This bibliometric systematic review analyzed 288 publications on extracellular vesicles in cutaneous melanoma from 2005 to 2025. Annual output rose 4100% relative from 1 publication in 2005 to 42 in 2020 (absolute increase 41 publications/year), peaking in 2020, with a slight decline to 2023 possibly related to COVID-19. Citations surged from 2018, peaking in 2021 (33 publications receiving 3,620 citations). The US led with 82/288 publications (27.8% absolute share), followed by China (49; 16.61%) and Italy (41; 13.9%); international collaboration was limited (China 2.2%, US 15.5%). Chongqing Medical University was most productive (45 publications). The Journal of Extracellular Vesicles published the most (15). Keyword themes shifted from methodological terms to clinical/biological topics like metastasis, immune response, biomarkers, and PD-1. The included literature also supports that metastatic success depends on more than tumor genetics, with non-genetic factors influencing metastasis. The study has published corrections/errata; readers should check the correction notices for updated information.
Methods Used
Bibliometric systematic review using Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE; PRISMA selection; 2800 records screened to 288 included studies; Bibliometrix R-package for publication trends, citations, author/institution/country networks, keyword co-occurrence, and thematic evolution.
Main Finding
Research output on extracellular vesicles in cutaneous melanoma grew 4100% relative from 1 publication in 2005 to 42 in 2020 (absolute increase 41 publications/year), with citations surging after 2018. The US produced 82/288 publications (27.8% absolute share) and 12,898 citations, followed by China (49; 16.61%) and Italy (41; 13.9%). International collaboration was limited (China 2.2%, US 15.5%). The absolute risk or effect on clinical outcomes was not assessed; this is a bibliometric analysis of research activity.
Confidence Level
Low for causal or clinical claims because it is a bibliometric review; citation counts and publication volume reflect research activity, not methodological quality or validity. Limitations include excluding MEDLINE/PubMed, English-only restriction, and recent citation lag.
Study Flags
Red Flags
- •Excluded MEDLINE/PubMed and English-only, limiting coverage
- •Citation metrics and publication counts do not assess methodological quality or causality
- •Corrections/errata or expression of concern issued; check notices for updated information
Surprising Findings
China is the second most productive country but has the lowest international collaboration rate at 2.2%, compared with the US at 15.5%.
High publication output often implies a globally integrated research community, but here volume and collaboration diverge sharply.
Practical Takeaways
For researchers: seek international collaborators to improve reproducibility and alignment with ISEV/MISEV guidelines.
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 527 / 100
Probability of being correct
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort studies. They sit above a single cohort study but below a single randomized trial, because the underlying evidence is still observational.
Systematic Review
Subject
Lower probability
on the GRADE evidence scale
This study is like a survey of all the science articles about tiny bubbles from melanoma cells. It shows which topics are popular and how the research field is growing. But it doesn't test whether those bubbles actually cause cancer to spread.
Strengths
- Comprehensive search across three major databases (Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE)
- Followed PRISMA guidelines for study selection
- Large sample of 288 included studies
Weaknesses
- No assessment of methodological quality or risk of bias of included studies
- Language restriction to English only
- Exclusion of grey literature and non-journal sources
Methodology
Evidence Keywords
Statistical Reporting
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a healthcare professional. Terms
Scientists looked at all papers from 2005 to 2025 about tiny bubbles called extracellular vesicles in skin melanoma. They found the field grew a lot, led by the US and China, but researchers do not collaborate much across countries.
Research results
The number of papers per year rose 4100% relative from 1 in 2005 to 42 in 2020 (absolute increase 41 papers/year). The US published 82 of 288 papers (27.8% absolute share), China 49 (16.61%), Italy 41 (13.9%). In 2021, 33 papers got 3,620 citations. China's international collaboration rate was 2.2%, US 15.5%.
What this means - more context
In absolute terms, the field went from about 1 paper per year to about 42 per year. The US contributed about 28 of every 100 papers. Most countries worked alone; only about 2 in 100 Chinese papers and 15 in 100 US papers involved international collaboration. These numbers describe research activity, not whether the science is correct.
To map global research trends, impact, and thematic evolution of extracellular vesicle research in cutaneous melanoma from 2005 to 2025.
This bibliometric systematic review analyzed 288 publications on extracellular vesicles in cutaneous melanoma from 2005 to 2025. Annual output rose 4100% relative from 1 publication in 2005 to 42 in 2020 (absolute increase 41 publications/year), peaking in 2020, with a slight decline to 2023 possibly related to COVID-19. Citations surged from 2018, peaking in 2021 (33 publications receiving 3,620 citations). The US led with 82/288 publications (27.8% absolute share), followed by China (49; 16.61%) and Italy (41; 13.9%); international collaboration was limited (China 2.2%, US 15.5%). Chongqing Medical University was most productive (45 publications). The Journal of Extracellular Vesicles published the most (15). Keyword themes shifted from methodological terms to clinical/biological topics like metastasis, immune response, biomarkers, and PD-1. The included literature also supports that metastatic success depends on more than tumor genetics, with non-genetic factors influencing metastasis. The study has published corrections/errata; readers should check the correction notices for updated information.
Methods Used
Bibliometric systematic review using Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE; PRISMA selection; 2800 records screened to 288 included studies; Bibliometrix R-package for publication trends, citations, author/institution/country networks, keyword co-occurrence, and thematic evolution.
Main Finding
Research output on extracellular vesicles in cutaneous melanoma grew 4100% relative from 1 publication in 2005 to 42 in 2020 (absolute increase 41 publications/year), with citations surging after 2018. The US produced 82/288 publications (27.8% absolute share) and 12,898 citations, followed by China (49; 16.61%) and Italy (41; 13.9%). International collaboration was limited (China 2.2%, US 15.5%). The absolute risk or effect on clinical outcomes was not assessed; this is a bibliometric analysis of research activity.
Confidence Level
Low for causal or clinical claims because it is a bibliometric review; citation counts and publication volume reflect research activity, not methodological quality or validity. Limitations include excluding MEDLINE/PubMed, English-only restriction, and recent citation lag.
Study Flags
Red Flags
- •Excluded MEDLINE/PubMed and English-only, limiting coverage
- •Citation metrics and publication counts do not assess methodological quality or causality
- •Corrections/errata or expression of concern issued; check notices for updated information
Surprising Findings
China is the second most productive country but has the lowest international collaboration rate at 2.2%, compared with the US at 15.5%.
High publication output often implies a globally integrated research community, but here volume and collaboration diverge sharply.
Practical Takeaways
For researchers: seek international collaborators to improve reproducibility and alignment with ISEV/MISEV guidelines.
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 527 / 100
Probability of being correct
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort studies. They sit above a single cohort study but below a single randomized trial, because the underlying evidence is still observational.
Systematic Review
Subject
Lower probability
on the GRADE evidence scale
This study is like a survey of all the science articles about tiny bubbles from melanoma cells. It shows which topics are popular and how the research field is growing. But it doesn't test whether those bubbles actually cause cancer to spread.
Strengths
- Comprehensive search across three major databases (Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE)
- Followed PRISMA guidelines for study selection
- Large sample of 288 included studies
Weaknesses
- No assessment of methodological quality or risk of bias of included studies
- Language restriction to English only
- Exclusion of grey literature and non-journal sources
Methodology
Evidence Keywords
Statistical Reporting
Scoring
How strong is this study?
The researchers searched three big databases and used a standard computer program to map the articles. However, they only looked at English papers and didn't check if each study was done well, so it's a good map of the field but not proof about what works in patients.
0 / 100
- COI disclosureconflicts of interest not disclosed
- Data availabilitydata not shared
- Code availabilitycode not shared
19 / 100
- Randomizationnot randomized
- Blindingnot blinded
- Control groupno control group
- Sample size (n=288)+15.3/20
- Follow-upno follow-up reported
100 / 100
0 / 100
- P-valuesno p-values reported
- Effect sizeno effect size reported
- Confidence intervalsno confidence intervals
- Pre-registrationnot pre-registered
Each component is scored out of 100 and then capped by the study design — a case series cannot reach the ceiling a randomised trial can, however well it is reported.
Where it sits
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 527 / 100
Probability of being correct
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort studies. They sit above a single cohort study but below a single randomized trial, because the underlying evidence is still observational.
This design cannot establish causation — the findings describe an association, not a cause. This is a bibliometric systematic review of publications on extracellular vesicles in cutaneous melanoma. It maps research trends, citation patterns, and thematic evolution but does not test causal relationships between EVs and clinical outcomes. Therefore, it cannot establish causation.
COI Unknown
Could not determine conflict of interest status
No COI or funding statement is present in the provided excerpt, and the text appears truncated; therefore conflicts of interest cannot be assessed.
The provided text is truncated and does not include a conflict of interest, funding, or author contribution section. No industry funding or author COI can be identified from the available text.
Standing
The people behind it
The researchers who wrote the study this analysis is built on.
Authored by
54 researchersIf this is your work, this is how we attribute it on Fit Body Science. Ayuko Hoshino is listed as the lead author.