High-impact articles in hand surgery

The most influential articles on stem cells in intervertebral disc degeneration

BACKGROUND

Stem cell-related studies have been increasingly conducted to facilitate the regeneration of degenerative discs. However, analyses of high-impact articles focused on this topic are rare. This study aimed to determine and summarize the most-cited studies examining stem cells in the context of intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD).

METHODS

We searched the Web of Science (WoS) database for stem cell-related articles in IDD, and the 50 highest-cited papers were summarized. A correlation analysis was conducted to determine the relationship among WoS citations, Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), and Dimensions.

RESULTS

The number of citations of the top 50 manuscripts ranged from 92 to 370. The top three countries were the United States (14), China (10), and Japan (9). Spine (12) was the most prevalent journal, and this was followed by Biomaterials (6). Bone marrow-derived stem cells were the most common subject (38), and they were followed by nucleus pulposus-derived stem cells (4) and annulus fibrosus-derived stem cells (4). Humans were the most studied species (31), and the next most studied were rabbits (9) and rats (7). There was a very high correlation between WoS and Dimension citations (p < 0.001, r = 0.937).

CONCLUSIONS

For the first time, the highest impact articles examining stem cells in the context of IDD were assessed together. The current study provides a deepened understanding of historical studies focused on stem cells in IDD and is beneficial for future studies in this field.

Trends of High-Impact Studies in Pharmacology and Pharmacy: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective: To investigate the trends of high-impact studies in pharmacology and pharmacy research and to provide evidence for future research in the field of pharmacology and pharmacy.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed to understand the current status of high-impact studies (top 1%) in pharmacology and pharmacy research via InCites tool based on Web of Science Core Collection. VOSViewer software was used to visualize the results. The outcomes included development trends, countries, subject areas, research institutes, collaborative networks, and subject terms.

Results: We found 4,273 high-impact (top 1%) studies between 2011 and 2020 in the field of pharmacology and pharmacy. The number of studies increased from 366 in 2011 to 510 in 2020. These studies were mainly distributed in the following Web of Science subject categories: pharmacology and pharmacy (n = 4,188); neurosciences (n = 397); chemistry, multidisciplinary (n = 359); chemistry, medicinal (n = 314); microbiology (n = 301); biotechnology and applied microbiology (n = 280). These studies were cited in 646,855 studies from more than 100 Web of Science subject categories, and studies in pharmacology pharmacy accounted for the largest share of these citations. The top three countries that contributed the highest number of studies were the United States, United Kingdom, and China. The top three institutions that contributed the highest number of studies in the United States were the University of California System, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Harvard University. The top research collaborative circle was from universities in the United States. The top international collaborative circle was from universities from the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and China. The subject-term analysis indicated that cancer was still the top disease, NF-κB was the top signaling pathway, and drug-delivery and nanoparticles were the top methods.

Conclusion: The high-impact studies in pharmacology and pharmacy research have grown over time. The United States, the United Kingdom, and China are the top countries that contributed the high-impact studies. Cancer is still the greatest challenge in the field of disease treatment. It calls for more international collaboration in pharmacology and pharmacy research, which will help discover novel drugs.

A Critical Assessment of the Most Cited Papers on Distal Radius Fractures

This article reviews the impact of the most cited works on distal radius fractures. Judged by the most cited works in this field, distal radius fracture research has followed other paradigm shifts in the history of science. Landmark papers showed that restoring premorbid anatomy led to better outcomes, and a plurality of fixation strategies emerged. A breakthrough in technology came with volar plating, and the new paradigm emerged: precise anatomic reduction is achieved typically with volar plates, unless fragment-specific approaches are needed. This paradigm is being challenged as the association among malunion, arthritis, and function continues to be understood. The best treatment of distal radius fractures in the elderly has also evolved through time.

Study Characteristics Related to Citation Rates in Hip & Pelvis: An Analysis of Articles Published between 2009 and 2019

Purpose

We classified the articles published in the journal Hip & Pelvis and analyzed the relationship between study characteristics and citation rates.

Materials and Methods

All articles published in Hip & Pelvis from 2009 to 2019 were included. We classified the articles according to the type, language, listing in PubMed Central (PMC), treatment modality, material, design, anatomical focus, number of authors, and number of cases. We analyzed the citation rate according to this classification, with yearly citation rate reflecting the exposure period until March 2020.

Results

The yearly citation rate increased significantly after the language of the journal was changed from Korean to English in June 2014 (mean=0.96 vs. 1.63, P<0.05), and again after the journal was listed in PMC in March 2016 (mean=1.05 vs. 1.92, P<0.05). The yearly citation rates of review articles was highest, followed by those of editorials, original articles, and case reports (in this order). Among original articles, trauma-related articles had higher yearly citation rates than non-trauma-related articles (mean=1.00 vs. 0.68, P=0.034). Among clinical articles, studies focusing on the pelvis had higher yearly citation rates than studies on the hip or femur (mean=1.85 vs. 0.71 vs. 0.91, P=0.003).

Conclusion

The yearly citation rate of articles increased significantly after the language of Hip & Pelvis was changed to English and after the journal was listed in PMC. The mean yearly citation rate of articles focusing on the pelvis was significantly higher than that of articles focusing on the hip or femur.

The 50 most cited papers in chronic scapholunate reconstruction: a bibliometric analysis

PURPOSE

This study identifies the most impactful papers on scapholunate reconstruction and provides a quantitative assessment of the impact of these papers in order to inform future clinical practice, education, and research of this condition.

METHODS

The Scopus database was used in May 2020 to identify the 50 most cited clinical articles pertaining solely to chronic scapholunate reconstruction. Citation number and density, publication variables, and Altmetric Attention Scores (AASs) were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The top 50 articles on chronic scapholunate reconstruction produced 1,868 total citations, with an average of 37.36 ± 39.90 citations per article (range 7-196) and an average citation density of 2.44 ± 2.27. US-based publications (n = 20) and articles published in Journal of Hand Surgery (n = 24) were associated with significantly higher citation number and density (p < 0.01 - p = 0.018). In addition, sample size was positively correlated with citation density (rho = 0.312, p = 0.029). Fourteen articles were associated with an AAS (mean score = 4.07 ± 4.70). There was no significant association between AAS and citation number or density, but AAS did significantly predict citation density (coefficient = 0.378, 95% CI: [0.013-0.741], p = 0.043).

CONCLUSION

Numerous factors, such as journal of publication, location, and sample size, were significantly associated with citation number and/or citation density. Interestingly, AAS was predictive of, but not directly correlated with citation density, suggesting that the impact of scapholunate literature may not be adequately captured with a citation analysis.

Common Topics of Publication and Levels of Evidence in the Current Hand Surgery Literature

Background Scientific publications are the primary vehicle for the distribution of scientific findings, but there has been limited research on literature topic surveillance. We sought to identify and characterize the most commonly published topic domains in the hand surgery literature. Methods We performed a 6-month hypothesis testing phase to identify the most frequently published topics in three hand surgery journals: Hand, The Journal of Hand Surgery (American), and The Journal of Hand Surgery (European). We reviewed all of the published articles in these journals from June 2010 to May 2015 to identify and characterize publications related to the three most common topic domains. Results A total of 2,146 articles were published during the 5-year study period. The three most frequent topics domains included distal radius (DR) (11% of all articles), flexor tendon (FT) (9%), and carpal tunnel (CT) (7.5%). These subjects accounted for a total of 584 articles (27% of all publications) and 3,014 published pages during the study period. FT, CT, and DR publications were cited on average 2.3 times per year (2.5, 2.4, and 2.0, respectively). Conclusion A small subset of topic domains makes up a significant proportion of scientific publications in hand surgery.

Evidence hierarchies relating to hand surgery: current status and improvement. A bibliometric analysis study

BACKGROUND

Hierarchy of evidence is an important measurement for assessing quality of literature. Information regarding quality of evidence within the Brazilian hand surgery setting is sparse, especially regarding whether research has improved in either quality or quantity. This study aimed to identify and classify hand surgery studies published in the two most important Brazilian orthopedics journals based on hierarchy of evidence, with comparisons with previously published data.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Bibliometric analysis study performed in a federal university.

METHODS

Two independent researchers conducted an electronic database search for hand surgery studies published between 2010 and 2016 in Acta Ortopédica Brasileira and Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia. Eligible studies were subsequently classified according to methodological design, based on the Haynes pyramid model (HP) and the JBJS/AAOS levels of evidence and grades of recommendations (LOR). Qualitative and quantitative data were gathered regarding all studies. Previous data were considered to assess whether the proportion of high-quality studies had improved over time (2000-2009 versus 2010-2016).

RESULTS

The final analysis included 123 studies, mostly originating from the southeastern region (78.8%) and private institutions (65%), with self-funding (91.8%). Methodological assessment showed that 15.4% were classified as level I/II using HP and 16.4% using LOR. No significant difference in proportions of high-quality studies was found between the two periods of time assessed (5% versus 12%; P = 0.13).

CONCLUSION

Approximately 15% of hand surgery studies published in two major Brazilian journals were likely to be classified as high-quality through two different systems. Moreover, no trend towards quality-of-evidence improvement was found over the last 15 years.

A Bibliometric Analysis of the 100 Most-cited Articles in Rhinoplasty

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Introduction:

Citation analysis aims to quantify the importance and influence of a published article within its field. We performed a bibliometric analysis to determine the most highly cited articles within rhinoplasty and their impact on current practice.

Methods:

The 100 most-cited articles relating to rhinoplasty, between and inclusive of January 1864 to September 2015, were extracted from Web of Science in October 2015. Title, source journal, publication year, total citations, average citations/year, type of article, level of evidence, country of origin, main focus, use of outcome measures, incorporation into “Selected Readings in Plastic Surgery,” and funding status were recorded.

Results:

The total number of citations per article ranged from 61 to 276 (1.5–12.1 average citations per year). Surgical technique was the focus of 53% of articles, particularly those for reconstruction (75%). The United States produced 72% of articles compared with 8% from the United Kingdom. The top 100 articles were published within 20 journals; “Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons” contributed the most articles (n = 57). None of the articles achieved level 1 or 2 of evidence (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence, 2011), with most achieving level 4 evidence (n = 64). Case-series were the most popular methodology (n = 37). Few articles used validated outcome measures (n = 21). Twenty-nine percent were referenced in “selected readings.” Eighty-nine percent were unfunded studies.

Conclusions:

These top 100 articles are used in current teaching material and underpin surgical decision making. Developing and using validated objective assessment tools will benefit surgeons, patients, and the greater scientific community in objectively evaluating techniques with the most favorable results.

Milestones Contributing to the Evolution of Craniofacial Surgery

Craniofacial surgery (CFS) has a rich history of collaboration with a wide variety of surgical and nonsurgical specialties. This has resulted in a large volume of publications across this spectrum of subspecialties cataloging the advancements across the field. The authors aim to analyze the characteristics of the most cited articles in CFS. A literature search was performed using the Thomson/Reuters Web of Knowledge database to identify the top 50 most cited articles in CFS. The articles were analyzed for journal distribution, total citations, year of publication, citations per year, number of authors, type of article, institution, departmental affiliation, national affiliation, and top contributors. The articles were extracted from an assortment of 21 journals. The number of citations per article ranged from 115 to 1092 (average of 185). Forty-eight percent of articles were published in the 1990s, and 22% in the 2000s. The average number of years since publication until the present time was 21.34 (range 6-45 y). The most cited article (1092 citations and 52 citations/y) was an article by McCarthy et al on human mandible lengthening via gradual distraction. Departmental distribution indicated that the majority were attributable to departments of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery for 21 articles (42%). Twenty articles were categorized under cranial defect/bone substitutes, 12 under craniosynostosis, 7 under surgical modeling, 6 under distraction osteogenesis, and the remaining 5 under other. These articles qualitatively represent important milestones in CFS. This study affirms the potential value of "number of citations" as a meaningful metric when assessing the importance of an article within CFS.

The fifty most cited Italian articles in the orthopaedic literature

PURPOSES

It is widely known that in Orthopaedics, as in each specialty, the academic influence of an article is also determined by the number of times the article is cited. The aim of this study was to identify the 50 most frequently cited Italian orthopaedics journal articles and to analyse the characteristics that might have made them more citable.

METHODS

Science Citation Index Expanded was searched for the 50 most frequently cited Italian orthopaedics journal articles between 1988 and 2013 in the subject category "Orthopaedics".

RESULTS

The 50 most frequently cited articles were all published in English and were published in 12 of the 67 journals in the subject category "Orthopaedics" in the Institute for Scientific Information Web Science (Thomson Reuters, New York, New York, USA). One half of the articles were published before 2000 and the other half later. The number of citations ranged from 423 of the first article (mean citation/years 21.15) to 83 of the fiftieth (mean citation/years 16.60). The articles were all categorized under orthopaedic field, but each of them spanned from orthopaedics to a specific sub-specialty. The majority was clinical articles (n = 39), and the most common fields were sport orthopaedic surgery (including arthroscopy and cartilage) (n = 19) and biomechanics (n = 12).

CONCLUSIONS

This list of 50 most frequently cited Italian articles is, to our knowledge, significantly important for the general orthopaedic scientific community, particularly for the Italian orthopaedic community. Researchers and doctors may use this work to make their future publications more influential and citable.

The ACAPS and SESPRS surveys to identify the most influential innovators and innovations in plastic surgery: no line on the horizon

INTRODUCTION

Who and what have been the most influential innovators and innovations in plastic surgery? This historical paper attempts to determine our most important contributors and contributions.

METHODS

We conducted an anonymous, 7-question, web-based survey of all members of the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons (ACAPS) and the Southeastern Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (SESPRS). We asked respondents to list their top 5 most influential surgeons, the most important publications or bodies of work, and the most important innovations in plastic surgery, past and present.

RESULTS

Of the 86 nominees from ACAPS, the 15 most influential surgeons of the past century were Tessier, Buncke, Murray, Millard, Gillies, Mathes, Jurkiewicz, Taylor, Converse, Blair, Kleinert, Edgerton, McCraw, Peacock, and Brown, in that order. The most 10 influential surgeons of the current era are Rohrich, McCarthy, Wei, Lee, Siemionow, Allen, Coleman, Guyuron, Serletti, and Nahai. Of the 112 nominees from SESPRS, the 15 most influential surgeons of the past century were Gillies, Millard, Tessier, Buncke, Murray, Jurkiewicz, Hartrampf, Mathes, Taylor, Bostwick, McCraw, Furlow, Converse, Peacock, and Blair, in that order. The 10 most influential surgeons of the current era are Rohrich, Nahai, Wei, McCarthy, Coleman, MacKinnon, McGrath, Rubin, Guyuron, and Hammond. Pooled from both lists, the 10 most influential publications or bodies of work were Hartrampf's TRAM flap, Millard's cleft lip repair, McCraw/Mathes/Nahai's myocutaneous flaps, Furlow's cleft palate repair, Tessier's cleft classification and craniofacial repairs, Ramirez's components separation, Buncke's replantation/toe-to-thumb transfer, McCarthy's mandibular distraction osteogenesis, Taylor's free flap and angiosome concepts, and Murray's kidney transplant. The top 10 innovations of the 20th century were myocutaneous flaps, microsurgery, craniofacial surgery, skin grafts, transplantation, liposuction, bioimplants, distraction osteogenesis, angiosome anatomy, and rigid fixation. The 10 most important, current innovations are hand/face transplantation, fat grafting, stem cells, neurotoxins and soft-tissue fillers, biologic scaffolds, information technology, tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, negative pressure wound therapy, perforator flaps, and noninvasive imaging.

CONCLUSION

Plastic surgery includes a rich history of both incremental and disruptive innovation, which has endowed our discipline with a competitive advantage over other medical and surgical subspecialties. Based upon our past success in managing change, there may be no limit, or no line on the horizon, as to what is possible, provided that we pursue innovation in a systematic way that combines creativity and discipline.

The fifty most cited Latin-American articles in the orthopaedic literature

PURPOSE

The number of citations of an article is a marker of its academic influence. Several medical specialties, including orthopaedics, have ranked the articles with more citations. We identified the 50 most cited orthopaedic articles from Latin-America and analyzed the characteristics that made them citable.

METHODS

Science Citation Index Expanded was searched for citations of articles originated in Latin-America, published in any of the 63 journals in the category "Orthopaedics" from 1988 to 2013. We created a list ranking the 50 most commonly cited articles and determined the citation density (Citations/years since publication). Information noted for each article included authors, year of publication, country of origin, source journal, article type, and field of research.

RESULTS

Latin-American countries were the origin of 1% of orthopaedic articles. The top 50 most cited articles had between 29 and 150 citations (mean, 44.48); the citation density ranged from 1.43 to 15.5 citations/years (mean, 5.25). The articles were published in 19 of the 63 journals (11 general and eight sub-specialty journals), and all were published in English. Most articles (n = 29) were published in 2000 or later. The majority were clinical articles (n=40), and the most common fields were arthroscopy (n = 15) and hip surgery (n = 13). The top 50 articles originated mainly from Brazil (n = 20) and Argentina (n = 15).

CONCLUSIONS

This top 50 list displays articles that have become important references for the orthopaedic scientific community. Researchers may use this work to make their future publications more influential on future investigators.

The most cited articles in hand surgery over the past 20-plus years: a modern-day reading list

PURPOSE

To create a current reading list of the hand surgery articles most commonly cited in the last 20-plus years.

METHODS

Using the Web of Science Citation Index Search, we searched "hand" and "wrist" in the orthopedic, surgery, and sport sciences research areas. We then reviewed the articles and chose the 50 most commonly cited articles related to hand surgery. Articles were categorized as clinical or basic science. Clinical articles were subcategorized as either therapeutic, prognostic, diagnostic, or economic/decision analysis and assigned a level of evidence rating. We calculated the number of citations per year (citation density).

RESULTS

The total number of citations for the top 50 articles ranged from 92 to 317. Citation density ranged from 4 to 24 (average, 9.7). Of the 50 articles, 39 were clinical (78%), whereas the remainder were basic science. Clinical articles were most commonly therapeutic (25 of 39; 64%), followed by diagnostic (11 of 39; 28%) and prognostic (3 of 39; 8%). There were no economic/decision analysis-type articles. The most common level of evidence was level IV, which made up 38% of the list (19 of 50 articles). The second most common was level I, which represented 20% of the list (10 of 50 articles). A total of 70% of the articles (35 of 50) were published between 1990 and 1999, and the remainder of the articles were published after 1999. Fifty percent of the articles appeared in the Journal of Hand Surgery, American volume.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the articles found on our list have shaped the way we practice hand surgery today. We hope that this report and the articles it names can help residents and fellows study current hand surgery and its evolution over the past 20 years.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic and decision analyses IV.