The top 100 most-cited Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research articles

Impact of Large Database Studies on Orthopedic Surgery Literature: Are We Advancing the Field?

Background: While database studies have become more prevalent in the literature, there is concern over their value. In addition, the questions they are suitable to answer are limited. Questions/Purposes: We sought to determine the incidence of database studies in the orthopedic literature and in each subspecialty. In addition, we wanted to assess the impact of database studies on the literature by determining whether citations and Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) varied by study type (studies using internal or external databases and those not using databases). Methods: We searched PubMed for articles published in impactful orthopedic surgery journals in the year 2018. All articles were discoverable on the Altmetric explorer portal database. Impact was determined by journal impact factor. Study design, subspecialty, number of citations, and AAS were obtained. Univariable analyses were conducted between study type, demographic variables, and the outcome of either citation count or AAS. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of the primary outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed to differentiate the impact of external and internal database studies compared with non-database studies. Results: A total of 2684 total articles were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 366 studies (13.6%) were database studies. Hip and knee articles had the greatest incidence of database studies. Database studies had significantly more citations (5.9 vs 4.0) and significantly higher AAS (12.8 vs 11.3) compared with non-database studies. External database studies had significantly more citations (6.7 vs 4.8) and significantly higher AAS (14.0 vs 10.7) than internal database studies. Internal database studies had higher traditional citation counts but similar AAS to non-database studies. Conclusions: In 2018, database studies in well-reputed orthopedic journals had a greater number of citations but similar AAS compared with non-database studies. Further studies are warranted.

Better nutrition trajectory improves recovery following a hip fracture surgery for older persons with diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Influences of nutritional status on hip fractured persons with diabetes mellitus (DM) following surgery have not been reported.

AIMS

To explore the trajectory groups of nutritional status and their influences on post-operative recovery for older persons with hip fracture and DM.

METHODS

A total of 169 patients with DM and hip fracture from a clinical trial were included in this analysis. Mini Nutritional Assessment was used to assess the nutritional status of the participants. Outcome variables included self-care ability, muscle strength, depressive symptoms, health related quality of life, and cognitive function, which were collected before discharge and 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-months following hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Among hip fractured older persons with DM, within two years following surgery there were three nutritional trajectory groups: malnourished (28.3%), at-risk of malnutrition (41.9%) and well-nourished (29.8%). A decline in nutritional status, especially for the malnourished group, was seen in the second year. A better nutritional trajectory was associated with better recovery outcomes, including self-care ability, health related quality of life, cognitive function and less depressive symptoms.

DISCUSSION

Close to 30% of hip fractured persons with DM were considered to have a malnourished trajectory over 2 years following surgery. A poor nutritional trajectory was associated with poor mental health and physical recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous nutrition assessment during the first 2 years following hip fracture surgery for older persons with DM is important. Development and implementation of interventions targeting the malnourished trajectory group are suggested.

Bibliometric Analysis of Top 100 Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Orthopaedic Literature

Aim

We performed a bibliometric analysis of top 100 systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) in orthopaedic literature and also evaluated articles with maximum average citation per year, which were unable to make up in the present top 100 cited list, but may have a promising future in the world of citations.

Methods

This bibliometric study was performed by searching Web of Science database according to a specific search strategy by two independent authors according to eligibility criteria of the studies. Articles with more than 100 citations were eligible for analysis and were evaluated for following parameters: number of citations, journal name, publication date and year, first author, the total number of authors, average citations per year, methodological design of the study, geographic origin and institute associated. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using Kappa coefficient.

Results

The number of citations ranged from 1073 to 198 with a total citation count of 30,589. Inter-rater reliability came to out in the good agreement (Kappa value-0.8). There was visible up-gradation of the research from the 2000 year till today. Spine journal had the maximum articles (26) followed by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-America (12 articles). The topics "Spine" and "Sports Medicine" were the most frequently cited topics with 41 and 20 articles, respectively. USA has the maximum articles in the top 100 cited SR and MA. Based on the maximum average citations per year, 34 old articles were replaced in the list with the latest articles that have a bright future ahead and can be predicted to be in the top 100 cited SR and MA of Orthopaedics soon.

Conclusion

This study recognizes those articles that have contributed significantly to the growth of knowledge and influenced clinical practices in orthopaedics. We believe that this will facilitate and encourage researchers and clinicians in their future research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-022-00604-9.

Bibliometric trend analysis in a decade of European Orthopaedic literature

Purpose:

The purpose of this bibliometric study was to summarize European orthopedic literature produced by EFORT memberships between 2009 and 2019 and to identify the 100 most cited articles, analyzing the characteristics that made them so interesting for the orthopedic scientific world.

Method:

A search of the literature was conducted using Clarivate Analytics Web of Science in the subject category “orthopaedics”; then the results were summarized using Web of Science tools.

Results:

A total of 160.375 articles were found: most of these were produced by England. In particular the most prolific institution was the University of London. Analyzing in detail the 100 most cited publications emerged that most of them were review published in journal with high impact factor (Q1). The University of Oxford was the institution with the greatest number of contributions (13%). The most cited topics were osteoarthritis (24%), followed by orthopedic basic science (22%). Bio-materials was the most common topic by ordering the 100 analyzed articles according to “usage count”, a recent indicator of the level of interest in a specific item. Conclusion: This bibliometric study can be useful to identify topics of interest for future scientific research and to outline the features that make some publications more interesting than others. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Predicting the number of article citations in the field of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with the 100 top-cited articles since 2014: a bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder in children or early adolescents with an estimated worldwide prevalence of 7.2%. Numerous articles related to ADHD have been published in the literature. However, which articles had ultimate influence is still unknown, and what factors affect the number of article citations remains unclear as well. This bibliometric analysis (1) visualizes the prominent entities with 1 picture using the top 100 most-cited articles, and (2) investigates whether medical subject headings (i.e., MeSH terms) can be used in predicting article citations.

METHODS

By searching the PubMed Central^® (PMC) database, the top 100 most-cited abstracts relevant to ADHD since 2014 were downloaded. Citation rank analysis was performed to compare the dominant roles of article types and topic categories using the pyramid plot. Social network analysis (SNA) was performed to highlight prominent entities for providing a quick look at the study result. The authors examined the MeSH prediction effect on article citations using its correlation coefficients (CC).

RESULTS

The most frequent article types and topic categories were research support by institutes (56%) and epidemiology (28%). The most productive countries were the United States (42%), followed by the United Kingdom (13%), Germany (9%), and the Netherlands (9%). Most articles were published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (15%) and JAMA Psychiatry (9%). MeSH terms were evident in prediction power on the number of article citations (correlation coefficient = 0.39; t = 4.1; n = 94; 6 articles were excluded because they do not have MeSH terms).

CONCLUSIONS

The breakthrough was made by developing 1 dashboard to display 100 top-cited articles on ADHD. MeSH terms can be used in predicting article citations on ADHD. These visualizations of the top 100 most-cited articles could be applied to future academic pursuits and other academic disciplines.

Bibliometric analysis of case report citations and their effect on the impact factor: How does publishing case reports impact journals?

INTRODUCTION

Given their low citation rate, case reports may reduce a journal's impact factor (IF), making a journal less likely to accept them for publication. However, this concept has never been proven in a bibliometric study. This led us to carry out a bibliometric analysis to evaluate (1) the exact number of case reports published in orthopedics over a 2-year period, (2) their citation rate, (3) what the journals' IF would be if they had not published these case reports.

HYPOTHESIS

Publishing case reports reduces a journal's IF, bringing into question whether they should be published.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective bibliometric study. We focused on all the articles influencing the year 2017. We looked at all the journals in the "Orthopedics" discipline that had published at least one article in the years n-2 (=2015) or n-1 (=2016).

RESULTS

There were 1925 case reports among the 28,903 articles published in all orthopedics journals in 2015-2016, a 6.7% share of publications. Individually, each case report in 2015-2016 was cited an average of 0.86 times±1.4 [0-13] in 2017. Of all the case reports published in 2015-2016, 571 (30%) had not been cited in 2017. When comparing the individual number of each case report citation to the journal's IF, we found 413 instances (21.5%) where the case report was cited more than expected and 1512 (78.5%) where it was cited less than expected based on the journal's IF. The mean IF was 2.013. If the journals had not published any case reports, the mean IF would have been 2.072 (p<0.0001). For all the SIGAPS categories, the mean IF would have been higher if no case reports had been published. On average, the IF was lower by 0.059 points±0.121 [-0.165-0.537], with the difference being statistically significantly only for SIGAPS C and D journals. In 69 instances, the IF would be higher if the journal had not published any case reports. Conversely, the IF improved in 8 instances by publishing case reports: 3 were tier D journals and 5 were tier E journals.

DISCUSSION

Our study brings into question whether case reports should be published. Indeed, the publication of case reports lowers the IF of scientific journals. However, we should not completely stop publishing case reports since they can be useful to clinicians caring for patients with rare diseases or medical conditions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, systematic retrospective study.

Bibliometric evaluation of orthopaedics and traumatology publications from France: 20-year trends (1998-2017) and international positioning

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the scientific publication output for individual countries and medical specialties. The contribution of French authors to the currently expanding volume of publications on orthopaedics and traumatology (OT) is unclear. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR) is an English-language version of a preexisting French journal that was launched in 2009 to increase the dissemination of research done in France. The objective of this study was to use Web of Science (WoS) data from 1998 to 2017 to determine (i) the contribution of OT publications to the total worldwide volume of scientific publications, (ii) the contribution of OT publications from France to the total worldwide volume of OT publications, and (iii) changes over time in the proportion of OT publications from France with special attention to potential effects of the creation of OTSR.

HYPOTHESIS

The proportion of OT publications from France increased after 2010-2012, indicating a positive effect of OTSR.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

WoS data were used to identify original studies and review articles written by at least one French author, published between 1998 and 2017, and dealing with OT (defined as orthopaedics and/or traumatology in adult and/or paediatric patients). The worldwide volumes of publications in OT and other specialties were compared. Within worldwide OT publications, the proportion from France was determined. Indicators of impact were evaluated during successive 5-year periods. Finally, the position of OT in worldwide research was assessed and OT journals were analysed.

RESULTS

Among worldwide scientific medical publications, the proportion dealing with OT increased year on year from 1.93% in 1998 to 2.65% in 2017. Among annual publications from France, the proportion dealing with OT rose similarly, from 1.32% to 2.40%. Over the 20-year study period, France moved from the sixth to the ninth position, chiefly due to a large increase in publications from Asia. However, France remained in third position among European countries and increased its OT production 3-fold between 1998 and 2017. The proportion of OT articles from France that ranked among the top 1% most cited articles increased by 65% from 2008-2012 (20 articles) to 2013-2017 (33 articles), and the proportion in the top 10% increased by 31.8% (211 in 2008-2012 and 278 in 2013-2017). This rate of progression was faster than in any of the other western countries. Between 1998-2011 and 2012-2017, the contribution of French OT to publication output showed a 1.56-fold greater increase than did the contribution of OT to the worldwide volume of scientific medical publications.

DISCUSSION

OT publications from France have kept pace with the steady increase seen worldwide over the last 20years. Although the US and UK remain in the lead, and despite the considerable growth in the output of Asian countries, France occupies a prominent position on the international OT scene. The creation of OTSR has elevated the international profile of French OT centres.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study with no control group.

Publication output of French orthopedic and trauma surgeons: Quantitative and qualitative bibliometric analysis of their scientific production in orthopedics and other medical fields

INTRODUCTION

Bibliometric analysis is being used more and more in orthopedics and traumatology. However, the quantity and quality of publications authored by French orthopedic and trauma surgeons outside their discipline have never been analyzed, nor has the change in the quality of orthopedics publications. This led us to carry out a bibliometric analysis to answer the following questions: 1) How has the quantity of scientific production by French orthopedists changed over the past 10 years? 2) How has the quality of the overall scientific production by French orthopedists changed over the past 10 years?

HYPOTHESIS

From 2008 to 2017, the production of French orthopedists has increased in quantity and quality in orthopedics and other medical fields.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The analysis was performed by cross-referencing the list of SOFCOT (French Society for Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology) members with the French SIGAPS database and the InCites platform. Out of 3979 SOFCOT members, 972 (24%) had authored publications during this period and were included in the analysis. Several indicators were analyzed: number of publications; SIGAPS score (production quality) for the various Web of Science (WoS) categories; number and percentage of publications in the top 1% and top 10% (most highly cited articles worldwide).

RESULTS

The "Orthopedics" discipline was still the most prevalent with 68% of all publications identified. The "Surgery" discipline was stable, and the share of publications had increased in five other disciplines: Sports Sciences, Clinical Neurology, Emergency Medicine, Engineering-Biomedical and Material Science-Biomaterials. Of the 727 journals indexed in PubMed in which at least one author is a French orthopedic or trauma surgeon, 79 journals (11%) had at least 10 articles authored by a French orthopedists, making up 4680/6056 published articles (77%) during the study period. The highest SIGAPS score was in the "Orthopedics" discipline followed by "Surgery", and then by "Sport Sciences" with a large number of publications in the SIGAPS B category. Publications in "Orthopedics" category A and B journals increased 14% during this period. When all disciplines are pooled, the share of publications in SIGAPS A, B and C categories increased by 10% from 2008 to 2017. The largest increase in publications for categories A and B and the top 1% and 10% was in "Sports Sciences".

DISCUSSION

Over the past 10 years, French orthopedists have continued to increase their scientific production in the orthopedics field and in related fields such as Sport Sciences, Clinical Neurology and Biomedical Engineering. The quality of the scientific production of French orthopedists in their discipline and outside of it has greatly improved, as evidenced by the shift toward SIGAPS A and B journals.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study without control group.

Full-text publication rate of studies reported as 2013 SoFCOT meeting abstracts

BACKGROUND

Publication of scientific work, although mandatory to ensure dissemination of novel research findings and obtain further funding, can require considerably more time and effort compared to conference presentations. Several national or scientific societies have determined the publication rate of studies reported at their meetings. The French Society for Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (Société française de chirurgie orthopédique et traumatologique, SoFCOT) has not yet measured this parameter. The objective of this study was to (i) evaluate the full-text publication rate of studies accepted in abstract form for podium presentations or posters at the 2013 SoFCOT meeting and (ii) identify characteristics of abstracts associated with subsequent full-text publication.

HYPOTHESIS

The full-text publication rate of abstracts accepted for the 2013 SoFCOT meeting was equal to or greater than the mean reported by national societies, i.e., 44.5%.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Publication rates of the 503 studies reported as abstracts at the 2013 SoFCOT meeting were studied. The time horizon was thus at least 5years. The topic was orthopaedic surgery for 315 (62.6%) abstracts, trauma surgery for 153 (30.4%) abstracts, and fractures in elderly patients - the cross-field theme for that year - for 35 (7.0%) abstracts. Reporting was as a podium presentation for 275 (54.7%) abstracts, an e-poster for 205 (40.8%) abstracts, an instructional course lecture for 20 (4.0%) abstracts, a symposium for 2 (0.4%) abstracts, and a round table for 1 (0.2%) abstract.

RESULTS

The full-text publication rate was 35.6% overall and 47.1% (139 publications) for podium presentations. Mean time from podium or poster presentation at the SoFCOT meeting to full-text publication was 1.2±1.5years (range: -2.5 to 6.1years). The full-text publications had 0.8±2.3 (range: -6 to 11) more authors compared to the abstract. They appeared in 54 journals with a mean impact factor of 1.9±1.3 (range: 0.25 to 13.77; median: 1.41; interquartile range: 1.26 to 2.47). Subgroup comparisons showed that full-text publication was more common for prospective than retrospective studies (50.0% versus 30.5%, p<0.0001) and for studies showing a significant difference (48.6% versus 33.0%, p<0.0001). Systematic reviews were more often published in full than were anecdotal case-reports. The full-text publication rate was also higher for studies reported as podium presentations than as e-posters (47.1% versus 17.6%, p<0.0001). Finally, studies of orthopaedic surgery were more often published in full than were studies of trauma surgery (39.7% versus 28.2%, p=0.033).

DISCUSSION

The 5-year full-text publication rate of studies reported as abstracts at the 2013 SoFCOT meeting was consistent with previously reported data. The impact factors of the journals in which the studies were published are evidence of the high quality of the information shared at SoFCOT meetings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, systematic retrospective analysis.