摘要 : Objectives/Hypothesis: To provide an in-depth evaluation of research yield in laryngeal cancer from 1945 to 2010, using large-scale data analysis, employment of bibliometric indicators of production and quality, and density equali... 展开 Objectives/Hypothesis: To provide an in-depth evaluation of research yield in laryngeal cancer from 1945 to 2010, using large-scale data analysis, employment of bibliometric indicators of production and quality, and density equalizing mapping. Study Design: Bibliometic analysis incorporating the Web of Science Database. Methods: The search strategy employed was as follows; "TS = ((Laryngeal Neoplasm$) OR (Larynx Neoplasm$) OR (Larynx Cancer$) OR (Laryngeal Cancer$))." Author and journal data and cooperation networks were computed following analysis of combinations of countries and institutions that registered cooperation during the study period. Mapping was performed as described by Groneberg-Kloft in 2004. Results: A total of 8,658 items relating to laryngeal cancer were published over the study period, accounting for 139,700 citations. The United States was the most prolific country, accounting for 28.83% (n = 2,496) of total output. Other prolific nations included Italy (n = 794) and Germany (n = 792). There were 973 items published as a consequence of international cooperation; this practice increased steadily over time and accounted for 15.58% (88 of 565) of output in 2010. There were 1,073 different journals publishing articles on laryngeal cancer, although the top 20 (1.8%) most prolific titles were together responsible for more than 43% of the total output; these were led by Laryngoscope (n = 368) and Head and Neck, Journal of the Scientific Specialties (n = 364). A total of 24,682 authors contributed to the literature on laryngeal cancer; the leading author by output was Alfio Ferlito (n = 120); Carlo La Vecchia recorded the highest h-index (h = 32). Conclusions: This work represents the first attempt to provide quantitative and qualitative analysis of laryngeal cancer research output, whilst in tandem identifying the key bibliometric benchmarks to which those involved in the production of that output might aspire. 收起