Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Material

Data can be made available to the editor on request to the authors.

References

  1. Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809–1831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kelly, J. C., Glynn, R. W., O’Briain, D. E., Felle, P., & McCabe, J. P. (2010). The 100 classic papers of orthopaedic surgery: A bibliometric analysis. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery British, 92(10), 1338–1343. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B10.24867

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kavanagh, R. G., Kelly, J. C., Kelly, P. M., & Moore, D. P. (2013). The 100 classic papers of pediatric orthopaedic surgery: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 95(18), e134. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.01681

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nayar, S. K., Dein, E. J., Spiker, A. M., Bernard, J. A., & Zikria, B. A. (2015). The top 100 cited articles in clinical orthopedic sports medicine. The American Journal of Orthopedics (Belle Mead NJ), 44(8), E252–E261.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Zhang, W., Tang, N., Li, X., George, D. M., He, G., & Huang, T. (2019). The top 100 most cited articles on total hip arthroplasty: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 14(1), 412. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1476-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Xu, G., Meng, X., Guan, J., Xing, Y., Feng, Z., & Hai, Y. (2021). Systematic review of intervertebral disc repair: A bibliometric analysis of the 100 most-cited articles. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 16(1), 207. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02303-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Erivan, R., Villatte, G., Ollivier, M., Reina, N., Descamps, S., & Boisgard, S. (2019). The top 100 most-cited orthopaedics and traumatology: Surgery and research articles. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research, 105(8), 1459–1462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2019.01.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Luksameearunothai, K., Chaudhry, Y., Thamyongkit, S., et al. (2020). Assessing the level of evidence in the orthopaedic literature, 2013–2018: A review of 3449 articles in leading orthopaedic journals. Patient Safety in Surgery, 14, 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-020-00246-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bhandari, M., Busse, J., Devereaux, P. J., Montori, V. M., Swiontkowski, M., Tornetta Iii, P., Einhorn, T. A., Khera, V., & Schemitsch, E. H. (2007). Factors associated with citation rates in the orthopedic literature. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 50(2), 119–123.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Dagenais, S., Caro, J., & Haldeman, S. (2008). A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. The Spine Journal, 8(1), 8–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Turner, J. A., Ersek, M., Herron, L., & Deyo, R. (1992). Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Attempted meta-analysis of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 17(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199201000-00001

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wiggins, A. J., Grandhi, R. K., Schneider, D. K., Stanfield, D., Webster, K. E., & Myer, G. D. (2016). Risk of secondary injury in younger athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 44(7), 1861–1876. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546515621554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Collins, N. J., Prinsen, C. A., Christensen, R., Bartels, E. M., Terwee, C. B., & Roos, E. M. (2016). Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): Systematic review and meta-analysis of measurement properties. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 24(8), 1317–1329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2016.03.010

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Carragee, E. J., Hurwitz, E. L., & Weiner, B. K. (2011). A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: Emerging safety concerns and lessons learned. The Spine Journal, 11(6), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2011.04.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bonazza, N. A., Smuin, D., Onks, C. A., Silvis, M. L., & Dhawan, A. (2017). Reliability, validity, and injury predictive value of the functional movement screen: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 45(3), 725–732. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516641937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 339, 2700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., et al. (1999). Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses Lancet, 354, 1896–1900.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chalmers, I., & Fox, D. M. (2016). Increasing the incidence and influence of systematic reviews on health policy and practice. American Journal of Public Health, 106(1), 11–13. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302915

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Barnabé, M. A., Gordon, R., Ramjee, G., Loots, G., & Blackburn, J. M. (2020). National expenditure on health research in South Africa: How has the landscape changed in the past decade? South African Medical Journal, 110(4), 274–283. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2020.v110i4.14349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Man, J. P., Weinkauf, J. G., Tsang, M., et al. (2004). Why do some countries publish more than others? An international comparison of research funding, English proficiency and publication output in highly ranked general medical journals. European Journal of Epidemiology, 19, 811–817. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EJEP.0000036571.00320.b8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tahamtan, I., Safipour, A. A., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics, 107, 1195–1225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1889-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sengupta, N., Sarode, S. C., Sarode, G. S., Gadbail, A. R., Gondivkar, S., Patil, S., & Patil, S. (2020). Analysis of 100 most cited articles on forensic odontology. Saudi Dental Journal, 32(7), 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kambhampati, S. B., & Vaishya, R. (2020). Most cited publications in arthroscopy. Journal of Arthroscopic Surgery and Sports Medicine, 1(2), 212–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yang, K., & Meho, L. I. (2006). Citation analysis: A comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Proceedings of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Li, J., Burnham, J. F., Lemley, T., et al. (2010). Citation analysis: Comparison of Web of Science®, Scopus™, SciFinder®, and Google Scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 7(3), 196–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Silvestre, J., & Kamath, A. F. (2018). Prevalence and impact of self-citation in academic orthopedic surgery. American Journal of Orthopedics (Belle Mead NJ). https://doi.org/10.12788/ajo.2018.0015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hawkinson, M. P., Krueger, C. A., & Carroll, J. (2018). Self-citation does not appear to artificially inflate orthopaedic journal ranking. Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances, 27(2), 131–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India

    Sumit Banerjee, Naren Khatri & Abhay Elhence

  2. Department of Dentistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India

    Amanjot Kaur

Authors
  1. Sumit Banerjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Naren Khatri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amanjot Kaur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abhay Elhence
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception of study design: SB, AK, and NK. Acquisition of data, literature search: SB, AK, and NK. Analysis and interpretation of data collected: SB and NK. Drafting of article and/or critical revision: SB, NK, and AE. Final approval and guarantor of manuscript: SB and AE.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naren Khatri.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any conflict of interest to declare.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Patient’s consent to participate/publish

Not applicable.

Ethical standard statement

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study informed consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 63 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Banerjee, S., Khatri, N., Kaur, A. et al. Bibliometric Analysis of Top 100 Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Orthopaedic Literature. JOIO 56, 762–770 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-022-00604-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-022-00604-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation