The analysis effectively identifies key trends; however, further elaboration on the exclusion criteria, particularly for studies involving emerging administration methods or less-explored cancer types, would be helpful.
Figures 1 and 2 present insightful citation networks and keyword clusters, but more details on the thresholds used for co-occurrence and centrality analysis could enhance transparency and allow for better reproducibility of the findings.
Could the authors provide further clarification on these aspects?
My understanding is that the exclusion criteria were primarily based on the bibliometric scope defined by CiteSpace, focusing on studies with robust citation metrics to ensure relevance and impact. Articles involving newer administration methods or less-studied cancers may not have been prominently cited within the dataset, which could explain their limited representation. Regarding Figures 1 and 2, the thresholds for co-occurrence and centrality analysis were likely determined by CiteSpace’s default or optimized settings, which prioritize the most significant connections within the data.
Could the authors confirm whether this interpretation aligns with their approach and clarify if adjustments to CiteSpace parameters were made to refine the analysis?