Comment on “Bibliometric analysis reveals the research hotspots and trends of nasopharyngeal carcinoma immunotherapy”

analysis reveals the research hotspots and trends of nasopharyngeal carcinoma immunotherapy" by Gang Wang et al. 1 This article was the first to use bibliometric methods to analyze and reveal the research hotspots and trends of immunotherapy for NPC.The study provided valuable information and insights into the research of nasopharyngeal carcinoma immunotherapy, offering references and inspiration for future research directions and strategies.However, we have some doubts about some of the data and figures in the article, which will be commented critically as follows.First, the publication trends note that "a total of 513 records that met the criteria were collected from the Web of Science Core Collection."But the Country/region distribution analysis of publication output states that "684 records were published in 54 countries," which is clearly inconsistent with the above content.Secondly, it is further stated that: "In Figure 1a, dark red indicates a high publication volume, while gray indicates no publication volume.China published 265 articles in this field, ranking first.The United States (The US) ranked second with 123 articles, and Italy ranked third with 35 articles," but Figure 1a does not show the number of articles published by Italy, even though Australia (28) and Singapore (26) do.We highly support and appreciate the researchers' work, and thank them for their contributions in the research of immunotherapy for NPC.However, it is worth noting that the data of the article should be accurately to ensure that researchers obtain correct information.