Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 524–529 | Cite as

Scientometric evaluation of the global research in spine: an update on the pioneering study by Wei et al.

  • Ozcan KonurEmail author
Review

Abstract

Purpose

Wei et al. evaluated the global research in spine using scientometric methods based on a sample of 13,115 papers published in 5 spine journals from 2004 to 2013. This study builds on this pioneering study and provides up-to-date and thorough information on spine based on a sample of 166,962 papers for the stakeholders.

Method

Articles’ and ‘reviews’ published in ‘English’ in the journals indexed by the ‘Web of Science’ primary databases between 1980 and 2017 were retrieved through the use of an optimal keyword set for titles of both papers and ten spine journals. The information on document types and number of papers, authors, countries, funding bodies, institutions, publication years, journals, ‘Web of Science’ subject categories, and ten top citation classics were analyzed.

Results

A large sample of 166,962 papers were retrieved. The ‘reviews’ and ‘proceedings papers’ formed 5.8 and 2.8% of the sample, respectively. ‘Fehlings’, ‘Vaccaro’, ‘Takahashi’, ‘Lenke’, and ‘Gokaslan’ were the most-prolific authors. Nearly 0.7% of the papers had group authors besides single authors. The US was the most prolific country publishing 37.3% of the sample whilst Europe contributed to more than 39.8% of the sample. Only, 26.6% of the papers disclosed research funding. Among 40,897 institutions, ‘Harvard University’ was the most-prolific institution whilst the US institutions dominated the top-institution list. The research output steadily rose from 1375 papers in 1980 to 9357 papers in 2016 whilst 69.2% of the papers were published after 2000. Ten spine journals published only 23.4% of the sample. ‘Clinical Neurology’, ‘Orthopedics’, ‘Neurosciences’, and ‘Surgery’ was the most prolific subject categories. The top citation classic was a paper by van der Linden et al. on ankylosing spondylitis.

Conclusions

The optimal design of research sample made it possible to obtain nearly 13 times the size of the sample in Wei et al. as a true representation of the research in spine through the use of an optimal keyword set for the titles of both papers and 10 spine journals. However, despite the inefficient design of the incentive structures for the relevant stakeholders, the research in spine had expanded 6.8 times since 1980.

Keywords

Spine Back pain Citation classics Scientometrics Research evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper acknowledges the pioneering study on spine by Wei et al. [1] as well as other pioneering scientometric studies on spine.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author does not have any potential conflict of interest.

Source of funding

No funds were received in support of this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Wei MY, Wang WM, Zhuang YF (2016) Worldwide research productivity in the field of spine surgery: a 10-year bibliometric analysis. Eur Spine J 25(4):976–982CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garfield E (1955) Citation indexes for science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 122(3159):108–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garfield E (1964) Science Citation Index-A new dimension in indexing. Science 144(3619):649–654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garfield E (1970) Citation indexing for studying science. Nature 227(5259):669–671CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ding F, Jia ZW, Liu M (2016) National representation in the spine literature: a bibliometric analysis of highly cited spine journals. Eur Spine J 25(3):850–855CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koutras C, Antoniou SA, Heep H (2014) Geographic origin of publications in major spine journals. Acta Orthop Belg 80(4):508–514PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jia ZW, Wu YH, Li H et al (2015) Growing trend of China’s contribution to the field of spine: a 10-year survey of the literature. Eur Spine J 24(8):1806–1812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van der Linden S, Valkenburg HA, Cats A (1984) Evaluation of diagnostic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis. A proposal for modification of the New York criteria. Arthritis Rheum 27(4):361–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Black DM, Cummings SR, Karpf DB et al (1996) Randomised trial of effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with existing vertebral fractures. Lancet 384(9041):1535–1541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mayer ML, Westbrook GL, Guthrie PB (1984) Voltage-dependent block by Mg2+ of NMDA responses in spinal cord neurones. Nature 309(5965):261–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim SH, Chung JM (1992) An experimental model for peripheral neuropathy produced by segmental spinal nerve ligation in the rat. Pain 50(3):355–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25(24):3186–3191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ettinger B, Black DM, Mitlak BH et al (1999) Reduction of vertebral fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis treated with raloxifene: results from a 3-year randomized clinical trial. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 282(7):637–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lefebvre S, Burglen L, Reboullet S et al (1995) Identification and characterization of a spinal muscular atrophy-determining gene. Cell 80(1):155–165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roland M, Morris R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine 8(2):141–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rossini PM, Barker AT, Berardelli A et al (1994) Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord and roots: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical application. Report of an IFCN committee. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 91(2):79–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hunt SP, Pini A, Evan G (1987) Induction of c-fos-like protein in spinal cord neurons following sensory stimulation. Nature 328(6131):632–634CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ankara Yildirim Beyazit UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations