Orthopaedic Academic Activity in the United States: Bibliometric Analysis of Publications by City and State

Analysis of the Most Frequently Cited Articles in Hand and Wrist Surgery: A Modern Reading List

The aim of this investigation was to analyze the 50 most frequently cited articles on hand and wrist surgery of all time and those published during the 21^st century. We aimed to evaluate the article, author, and journal characteristics for these publications in order to create a modern reading list of impactful upper-extremity articles. A search of the Journal Citation Reports 2022 edition to identify journals containing possible hand or wrist-related articles was performed. Related journals were identified and then searched on the Web of Science database to identify hand and wrist articles. The top 50 most cited articles overall and the top 50 most cited articles from 2000-2021 were identified and indexed. Several bibliometric parameters, such as study type, study topic, study design, level of evidence, citation count, citation density, the institution of the lead author, the gender of lead and senior authors, and country were analyzed. For the most cited articles of all time, the number of citations ranged from 224 to 1109 with a mean of 368 citations and 15.0 citation density. Citations for the top 50 articles from 2000-2021 ranged from 153 to 950 with a mean of 233 citations and 14.5 citation density. For both groups, the most common level of evidence was level IV (33% and 27%). No correlation between journal impact factor and citation count or citation density was found. In both groups, "fracture" was the most common topic and papers were predominantly written by male authors. Frequently cited publications on hand and wrist surgery are often clinical papers that contain low levels of evidence and tend to focus on topics related to fracture care. Female authors remain underrepresented.

Assessing the academic achievement of United States orthopaedic departments

BACKGROUND

Assessing academic productivity allows academic departments to identify the strengths of their scholarly contribution and provides an opportunity to evaluate areas for improvement.

AIM

To provide objective benchmarks for departments seeking to enhance academic productivity and identify those with significant improvement in recent past.

METHODS

Our study retrospectively analyzed a cohort of orthopaedic faculty at United States-based academic orthopaedic programs. 5502 full-time orthopaedic faculty representing 178 programs were included in analysis. Variables included for analysis were National Institutes of Health funding (2014-2018), leadership positions in orthopaedic societies (2018), editorial board positions of top orthopaedic journals (2018), total number of publications and Hirsch-index. A weighted algorithm was used to calculate a cumulative score for each academic program. This study was performed at a large, United States medical school.

RESULTS

All 178 programs included in analysis were evaluated using the comprehensive weighted algorithm. The five institutions with the highest cumulative score, in decreasing order, were: Washington University in St. Louis, the Hospital for Special Surgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College (SKMC) at Thomas Jefferson University, the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH)/Brigham and Women’s/Harvard. The five institutions with the highest score per capita, in decreasing order, were: Mayo Clinic (Rochester), Washington University in St. Louis, Rush University, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) and MGH/Brigham and Women’s/Harvard. The five academic programs that had the largest improvement in cumulative score from 2013 to 2018, in decreasing order, were: VCU, SKMC at Thomas Jefferson University, UCSF, MGH/Brigham and Women’s/Harvard, and Brown University.

CONCLUSION

This algorithm can provide orthopaedic departments a means to assess academic productivity, monitor progress, and identify areas for improvement as they seek to expand their academic contributions to the orthopaedic community.

[Publication performance of university orthopedic trauma surgery in Germany]

Hintergrund

Zu den Leistungskriterien einer Universitätsklinik gehören ihre Publikationsaktivitäten. Ziel der vorliegenden bibliometrischen Untersuchung war es, die Publikationsaktivitäten deutscher unfallchirurgischer Universitätskliniken in einem Benchmarking vergleichend darzustellen.

Material und Methodik

Die Publikationsleistung der Führungsmannschaften, bestehend aus Chef- und Oberärzten, Sektions- und Bereichsleitern von 39 deutschen unfallchirurgischen Universitätskliniken wurde über 10 Jahre (01.01.2010 bis 31.12.2019) erfasst. Berücksichtigt wurden alle Publikationen, die in PubMed gelistet waren und bei denen die entsprechenden Personen Erst- oder Letztautor waren. Zusätzlich wurde der Impact-Faktor (IF) bestimmt.

Ergebnisse

Insgesamt wurden 4438 Veröffentlichungen erfasst, publiziert von 381 Chirurgen. Der Anteil der publizierenden Mitarbeiter betrug 72,8 %. Publiziert wurde in 545 Journalen. Der durchschnittliche IF aller Publikationen war 1,81. Die Publikationsaktivitäten der Kliniken zeigten eine hohe Streubreite, dies galt sowohl für die Publikationsanzahl als auch für die generierten IF des einzelnen Mitarbeiters. Die Publikationsaktivität reichte von durchschnittlich 16,4 Publikationen pro Mitarbeiter in der bestplatzierten Klinik bis 1,5 Publikationen bei der letztplatzierten. Gleiches ergab die Summe der IF. In der nach diesem Maßstab bestplatzierten Klinik erzielte der einzelne Mitarbeiter durchschnittlich kumuliert 42,1 IF verglichen mit 1,7 IF bei der letztplatzierten.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Publikationsleistung deutscher unfallchirurgischer Universitätskliniken zeigt eine hohe Varianz, wie dies auch bei anderen Disziplinen gefunden wurde. Die Ursachen müssen offen bleiben, eine unterschiedliche Forschungsmotivation ist aber nicht auszuschließen.

Publication activity of chief and consultant general/visceral surgeons in German university hospitals-a ten-year analysis

PURPOSE

The publication activity of 38 German general/visceral surgery university departments, documented by first or last authorship from staff surgeons (chief and consultants), was evaluated.

METHODS

The observation period extended from 2007 to 2017 and all PubMed-listed publications were considered. Impact factor (IF) was evaluated through the publishing journal's 5-year IF in 2016, as was the IF for each individual publication. Ranking was expressed in quartiles.

RESULTS

The staff surgeons of the 38 departments comprised 442 surgeons, of which only 351 (79.4%) were active as first or last authors. Four thousand six hundred and ninety-nine publications published in 702 journals were recorded. The four leading departments in publication number published as much as the last 20 departments (1330 vs. 1336 publications, respectively). The mean of the first (most active) department quartile was 19.6 publications, the second 15.4, the third 11.0, and the last quartile 7.6 per publishing surgeon. The total cumulative impact factor was 14,130. When examining the mean number of publications per publishing surgeons per the 10 year period, the mean of the first quartile was 57.9 cumulative IF, the second 45.0, the third 29.5, and the fourth quartile 17.1. With 352 (7.5%) publications, the most frequently used journal was Chirurg, followed by Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery with 274 (5.8%) publications. Pancreas-related topics led in terms of publication number and IF generated per individual publication.

CONCLUSION

A significant difference in publication performance of individual departments was apparent that cannot be explained by staff number. This indicates that there are as yet unknown factors responsible for minor publication activity in many university departments.

Thromboprophylaxis across orthopaedic surgery: Bibliometric analysis of the most cited articles

PURPOSE

One of the most common adverse events after orthopaedic surgery, with a potential for subsequent serious morbidity and mortality is venous thromboembolism (VTE). Bibliometric analysis has been performed regarding many topics and across orthopaedics. As DVT prophylaxis is a major component of both orthopaedic surgery considerations and research, a bibliometric analysis in this area would prove beneficial in not only in understanding the research done in the field thus far, but would also direct future research efforts.

METHODS

The Web of Science (WoS) database from the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) was used to compile articles for bibliometric analysis using Boolean search: ((Orthopaedic∗ OR Orthopaedic∗) AND (thromboprophylaxis OR Thromboembolism OR Deep vein thrombosis OR thrombus OR embolism OR anticoagulation OR Embolus OR prophylaxis)).

RESULTS

The Top 100 cited articles included in the final list generated a total of 21,099 citations. The highest cited article was Prevention of venous thromboembolism by Geerts et al. published in Chest, which had a total of 2802 on WoS, and a calculated citation density of 215.54 of citations/years since publication. Comparing the overall citation against the year of publication there was a slight positive trend favoring more recent publications (R-value: 0.142; adjusted R-squared: 0.01; p = 0.16). Analysis of an articles Level of Evidence (LOE), 17 were grade with a level of I.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthopaedic thromboprophylaxis is an ever-changing field that is at the forefront of orthopaedic literature. The significant trend favoring high quality research within orthopaedic thromboprophylaxis demonstrates the importance of this topic and there was a need for a guide to best understand the evolution of DVT prophylaxis.

Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients With Acetabular Protrusio

Background:

Acetabular protrusio (AP) is associated with distorted anatomic landmarks and insufficient bone stock that increases complexity of total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study used a large national database to compare outcomes after THA in patients with and without AP.

Methods:

The Nationwide Readmissions Database was used to identify patients with and without AP who underwent THA from 2010 to 2014. Primary outcomes analyzed included complications during index hospitalization and within 90 days of THA.

Results:

Propensity score matching generated 4,395 patients without AP and 4,603 patients with AP. Patients with AP were older (68.1 versus 65.2 years, P < 0.0001), more predominantly women (82.1% versus 55.9%), and had more medical comorbidities as measured by the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (2.29 versus 1.89, P < 0.0001). Patients with AP had an increased risk of requiring bone graft (odds ratio [OR] = 47.97, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.27 to 161.22), receiving a blood transfusion (OR = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.57 to 2.29), and suffering a periprosthetic fracture (OR = 2.56, 95% CI: 1.10 to 5.97) within 90 days of THA. Length and cost of index hospitalization were greater for patients with AP (5.0 versus 4.3 days, P = 0.002; $19,211.88 versus $27,736.30, P < 0.0001).

Conclusion:

Given the current emphasis on hospital cost optimization, it is important to ensure that patients with AP are managed appropriately. Attention should be placed on comprehensive preoperative planning and postoperative monitoring in this population.