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

Bibliometric evaluation of negative publications from orthopedics and traumatology from the ten most influential journals of 2009-2010 and 2019-2020: A comparative study with the "Orthopedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research" journal, using the same analysis of submitted and accepted articles

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data in the literature regarding negative articles concerning surgery in orthopedics and trauma. Knowledge pertaining to treatments or techniques which confer a beneficial effect remains important, as does knowledge regarding those which have a null or pejorative effect. Thus, this study was carried out on negative articles in order to: (1) determine their proportion in the ten predominant journals concerning orthopedic and trauma surgery; (2) assess variability in their publication rate depending on the journal and the year, and compare their citation rate to that of positive articles; (3) specify whether a positive article was more likely to be cited compared to a negative article; (4) carry out the same bibliometric analysis with the "Orthopedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR)" journal, and detect possible selection bias for negative articles during the review.

HYPOTHESIS

There are fewer negative articles than positive articles in the literature relating to orthopedic and trauma surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

The study was carried out using the ten orthopedic and trauma surgery journals with the highest impact factors for the year 2021. Two periods were compared, 2009-2010 and 2019-2020. Among the 17,812 publications obtained, 11,962 publications were retained to carry out the analysis (technical notes, meta-analyses, editorials and letters to the editor were all excluded). An analysis using the same method was carried out on the 3,727 articles submitted to OTSR from 2015 to 2021, which made it possible to compare the rejected articles to the accepted articles.

RESULTS

Negative articles represented 11% (1,342/12,023) of the literature relating to orthopedic and trauma surgery. There were differences in the rate of publication of negative articles depending on the journals (from 4.04% to 17.14%) (p<0.0001). The negative article publication rate did not change between the two periods studied: 534/4963 articles (10.76%) in 2009-2010 versus 802/6999 (11.46%) in 2019-2020 (p=0.23). Positive articles were not cited more often than negative ones: no significant difference between the Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) classes (respectively for classes 0;1[/[1;2[/≥ 2 with 45.66% 28.22% and 26.12% for negative articles versus 44.90% 27.46% and 27.64% for positive articles [p=0.4]) and the Top10% (with 18.86% for negative articles versus 20.10% for positive ones [p=0.28]). The OTSR journal had a rate of negative articles of 9.46% which was within the average range of the journals studied. A selection bias (p<0.02) for negative articles during the review of the OTSR journal was identified with fewer negative articles accepted (115/1216 [9.46%]) than positive articles (164/1330 [12.33%]).

DISCUSSION

The publication of negative articles varies according to the journals and although it is modest, at only 11%, it is essential because it allows us not to repeat errors but also not to bias the carrying out of meta-analyses, and among other things to avoid useless studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; case control study from the literature.

Do bibliometric findings differ between Medline, Google Scholar and Web of Science? Bibliometry of publications after oral presentation to the 2013 and 2014 French Society of Arthroscopy (SFA) Congresses

INTRODUCTION

Bibliometrics consists in quantitative and qualitative analysis of an individual's or group's communication (volume, visibility), and impacts research funding. There are a number of bibliometric data sources, functioning in different ways and liable to give rise to differing statistics. This point has not been investigated in relation to publication following presentation to a French congress. We therefore conducted a study comparing the main bibliometric instruments, aiming to assess: (1) publication rates following oral presentation to the 2013 and 2014 French Society of Arthroscopy (SFA) Congresses according to the database used, and (2) citation rates for these publications according to database.

HYPOTHESIS

Publication and citation rates differ according to database. Material and method All 199 Abstracts of oral presentations to the 2013 and 2014 SFA Congresses were included. Based on author names and key-words, manual search was conducted in the Medline, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases. Publication characteristics (citation rate) were studied using the 3 databases and the French SIGAPS (Système d'Interrogation, de Gestion et d'Analyse des Publications Scientifiques: Scientific Publication Search, Management and Analysis System) website.

RESULTS

Publication rates according to Medline and Google Scholar were the same (48.2%: 96 articles for 199 presentations), but significantly lower on Web of Science (44.7%: 89/199; p=0.002). Citation rates differed significantly (p<0.001) between sources, with Google Scholar listing a mean 1.5-3.4-fold more citations per article than the other 2 databases. Citation rates between the 3 databases correlated strongly (r=0.93).

DISCUSSION

The example presented in this study illustrates the differences in bibliometrics found between different databases. There was a 4% difference (7/199 articles) in publication rates following oral presentation to an SFA Congress, and even greater differences in citation rates per article, with 1.5-3.4-fold more citations according to Google Scholar. Bibliometric studies need to acknowledge the database(s) being used, which should be as many as possible to enhance exhaustiveness.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; descriptive epidemiologic study.

Rate of publication in predatory journals by orthopedic surgeons members of the French orthopedic and traumatology society (SOFCOT): A follow-up note

BACKGROUND

France ranks 9th worldwide for scientific publication in orthopedics and the increase in both the quantity and the quality of its scientific production has been described in detail. On the other hand, publishing by French orthopedic surgeons in predatory journals is more obscure. The journals in question are difficult to identify but are based on an open-access model with article processing charges (APC), except in rare cases that are difficult to specify, as they are not stated at the time of submission. The increase in the number of predatory journals over the last 10 years led us to attempt to assess the rate at which French orthopedic surgeons publish in them, as revealed by investigation of the SIGAPS bibliometric database.

HYPOTHESIS

Over the period 2008-2017, the rate of publications by French orthopedic surgeons in predatory journals was less than 5%.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

The SIGAPS database contains the detail of publications by French orthopedic surgeons members of the French Society of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology (SoFCOT) and was used to analyse all such articles (journal article, review or editorial) so as to isolate articles with PubMed-Not-MEDLINE status falling in the SIGAPS non-classified (NC) category and to determine the predatory status of the journal using established lists, such as Beall's list or that drawn up by StopPredatoryJournals. In case of difficulty in determining predatory status, we applied the criteria defined by Beall and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

RESULTS

Out of 6056 articles in the SIGAPS database published by French orthopedic surgeons between 2008 and 2017, 323 could be suspected of being published in a predatory journal, but only 33 were so confirmed: i.e., 0.55% of French orthopedic scientific output over the study period. Eleven appeared in journals whose publishers were listed as predatory by Beall, 21 appeared in journals whose publishers had been listed as predatory on Beall's list in 2012 with the dubious editorial practices defined by Beall, and one article appeared in a journal found to be predatory on analysis of its editorial board. More than half of these articles (58%) were subject to APCs averaging $400.

DISCUSSION

Despite a strong increase in the number of predatory journals over the last decade, very few French orthopedic surgeons resort to them to publish their work. Difficulty of identification and authors' lack of knowledge about this type of journals may account for some of these submissions. Scientific teams need to check certain criteria before submitting to a journal: short time to publication and low APC should be taken as warning signs, and any demand for payment after acceptance certainly raises the question of the journal's predatory nature.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective study without control group.

Publication rate of studies presented at the French Arthroscopic Society Meeting in 2014

INTRODUCTION

Publication rates for studies reported at French Arthroscopic Society (Société francophone d'arthroscopie, SFA) meetings are not known. A comprehensive search of podium presentations to the 2014 SFA meeting was performed, assessing: (1) publication rate for meeting abstracts, and (2) bibliometric parameters including journal Impact Factor.

HYPOTHESIS

The full-text publication rate for abstracts accepted for the 2014 French Arthroscopic Society (SFA) meeting was around 47.1%: i.e., the rate reported for the 2013 meeting of the French Society of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology (SoFCOT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Bibliometric analysis of all abstracts accepted for the 2014 SFA annual meeting was undertaken by the Junior French Arthroscopic Society (SFA Junior), who collated the podium presentations. Reported studies were retrospective in 43 cases (54%) and prospective in 36 (46%). They consisted in clinical studies in 52/79 cases (66%), experimental studies in 4 (5%), cadaver or animal studies in 13 (16.5%), epidemiological studies in 8 (10%), a case report in 1 (1.2%) and a literature review in 1 (1.2%). Thirty-two (40.5%) concerned the shoulder and 31 (39%) the knee. Publication was checked on systematic PubMed-Medline search of authors' names. Articles found on PubMed-Medline were downloaded into the SIGAPS scientific publication search, management and analysis system database. Journal impact factor and SIGAPS category (A to E) were obtained, as were number of citations and h-index. This was a descriptive study, assessing numbers; results were reported as number and percentage.

RESULTS

Overall publication rate was 31/79 (39.2%): 20/31 clinical studies (64.5%), 6 cadaver studies (19.4%), 3 epidemiology studies (9.7%), 1 experimental study (3.2%) and 1 literature review (3.2%). Mean 2014 SFA meeting-to-publication time was 18.7 months [range, -2 to 60 months]. Journal SIGAPS categories were A for 4 articles (13.3%), B for 13 (43.3%), C for 3 (10%), D for 9 (30%), with no E category articles but 1 article (3.3%) without SIGAPS category.

CONCLUSION

The publication rate for abstracts accepted for report to the 2014 SFA annual meeting was lower than for the 2013 SoFCOT meeting. The high level of the journals in question testified to the quality of the studies reported at the SFA meeting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study.

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.

Clinical, functional and prognostic results after repair of peripheral lesions of the triangular fibrocartilage complex: a retrospective study of 21 patients

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study was to assess the clinical and functional outcomes of arthroscopic TFCC repair in patients with an isolated Atzei type 1, 2 or 3 lesion or after a distal radius fracture. The secondary objective was to identify which factors could contribute to poor functional outcome.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted from November 2017 to May 2019. The inclusion criteria were patients with an Atzei type 1, 2 or 3 TFCC lesion who underwent arthroscopic repair and with a minimum of 6-month follow-up. Wrist motion, grip and pronation-supination strength were noted. QuickDASH, MMWS and PRWE scores were performed. An analysis was conducted to search for poor outcomes predictive factors (MMWS < 80).

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients were included with a mean follow-up of 26 months. Seventeen patients (80%) had an Atzei 1 lesion, one (4.8%) had an Atzei 2, and 3 (14%) had an Atzei 3. Wrist motion significantly decreased compared to contralateral. Only pronation and supination were not significant. Grip strength was 73.4% compared to the contralateral (p = 0.002). Mean PRWE was 29.14 (1.5-70.5), QuickDASH was 30.72 (2.3-70.5), and MMWS was 79.3 (35-100). In all patients with a MMWS ≥ 80, none had lunotriquetral lesions when it was the case for 5 of 9 patients with a MMWS < 80 (p = 0.006). Except a story of workplace injury, no other prognosis factor was significant.

CONCLUSION

Patients with Atzei 1, 2 or 3 TFCC who underwent arthroscopic repair seem to have good outcomes. However, an associated lunotriquetral lesion appears to worsen the functional prognosis.

Progression and projection for shoulder surgery in France, 2012-2070: Epidemiologic study with trend and projection analysis

INTRODUCTION

Shoulder surgery has been rapidly expanding over the past 20 years and now makes up a large share of orthopedic surgery practice. Data on how this activity has changed is not available in France due to a lack of registries. The study objectives were to: (1) quantify the number of shoulder surgeries in France, (2) predict how this activity will change over the next 50 years based on extreme scenarios.

METHODS

This study involved an analysis of shoulder surgery data taken from the French hospital discharge database (PMSI). Two mathematical scenarios were applied to define the change over time: the first only considered the evolution in the population and changes in the age brackets over time; the second extrapolated the trends observed over the past few years (2012 to 2018).

RESULTS

In 2018, there were 234,612 procedures coded as primary shoulder surgery procedures in France. This activity increased 24.5% between 2012 and 2018 and is projected to increase 18% to 161% from now to 2050, depending on the scenario (p<0.0001). Rotator cuff surgery procedures were done 173,799 times - of which 61,055 were tendon repair - representing 74% of all shoulder procedures. The scenarios point to an increase of 13.6% to more than 300% (p<0.0001). Primary shoulder arthroplasty corresponded to 17,043 procedures in 2018 (7.3% of all procedures), with a 47% increase between 2012 and 2018. Between 2018 and 2050, the number of total shoulder arthroplasty procedures is expected to increase 31% to 322% (p<0.0001). The total number of revision arthroplasty procedures was 1508, increasing by 39% from 2012 to 2018. There were 14,229 procedures done for anterior or posterior instability in 2018 (6% of total). Bone block procedures made up 53% of these cases. This increased 17% between 2012 and 2018, with a projected increase of 5% to 82% up to 2050 (p<0.01).

DISCUSSION

Shoulder surgery is the third largest activity in the orthopedic realm after hip and knee surgery, although it has seen the largest increases in recent years. This growth in shoulder procedures should continue over the next decades.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, descriptive epidemiology study.

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.