Download PDF
J Hand Microsurg 2022; 14(01): 47-57
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1710171
Original Article

The 100 Most Impactful Papers in Hand and Upper Extremity Surgery over the Last 25 Years: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Orthopaedic Literature

Neil V. Shah 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine, State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, United States
,
John J. Kelly
2   School of Medicine, State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, United States
,
Jared M. Newman
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine, State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, United States
,
Karan Dua
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine, State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, United States
,
Alba Avoricani
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine, State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, United States
,
Bassel G. Diebo
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine, State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, United States
,
Steven M. Koehler
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine, State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Despite growth in hand/upper extremity investigation, impactful studies have not been thoroughly identified. Previous studies have been limited in scope. This study sought to identify and characterize the most impactful orthopaedic papers in hand/upper extremity over the past 25 years.

Materials and Methods The top 1,000 hand/upper extremity orthopaedic studies published from 1992 to 2017 were identified with Web of Science. After screening for relevance in order of decreasing citation number, the top 100 articles were identified for bibliometric analysis.

Results The mean number of authors and citations were 4.51 (range, 1–21) and 169.4 (range, 105–863). Common study types included, case series (n = 52), randomized controlled trial (n = 17), and prospective cohort (n = 16), which predominantly covered topics related to shoulder (n = 34), wrist/forearm (n = 21), and hand (n = 17). Among wrist/forearm and hand studies, distal radius fractures (n = 12) and nerve-related topics (n = 10) were most frequently analyzed. Most studies were of level IV (n = 51) and level II (n = 16) evidence. Recent studies had greater impact (mean citations/year: 2011, 82.7/year vs. 1992, 16.1/year).

Conclusion Most of the 100 top orthopaedic articles in hand/upper extremity were of level IV or II evidence, retrospective, and nonrandomized. Despite an observed recent increase in level I studies, a lack of prospective, randomized trials is apparent.

Keywords

hand/upper extremity - surgery - bibliometric analysis - top 100 - evidence-based medicine


Publication History

Article published online:
28 April 2020

© 2020. Society of Indian Hand & Microsurgeons. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Agarwal A, Durairajanayagam D, Tatagari S. et al. Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics. Asian J Androl 2016; 18 (02) 296-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ellegaard O, Wallin JA. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact. ? Scientometrics 2015; 105 (03) 1809-1831
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Loonen MPJ, Hage JJ, Kon M. Value of citation numbers and impact factors for analysis of plastic surgery research. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120 (07) 2082-2091
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Moed HF. New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) 2009; 57 (01) 13-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 1972; 178 (4060) 471-479
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cheek J, Garnham B, Quan J. What’s in a number? Issues in providing evidence of impact and quality of research(ers). Qual Health Res 2006; 16 (03) 423-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lefaivre KA, Shadgan B, O’Brien PJ, O’Brien PJ. 100 most cited articles in orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 (05) 1487-1497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Waltman L, Calero-Medina C, Kosten J. et al. The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2012; 63 (12) 2419-2432
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Weingart P. Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences?. Scientometrics 2005; 62 (01) 117-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Joyce CW, Kelly JC, Carroll SM. The 100 top-cited classic papers in hand surgery. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2014; 48 (04) 227-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Garfield E. [The impact factor and its rightful use] (in German). Anaesthesist 1998; 47 (06) 439-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Web of Science. Confident research begins here. Available at: https://clarivate.com/products/web-of-science/. Accessed April 8, 2020
    PubMed
  • 13 Level of Evidence. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume. Available at: https://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/Pages/Journals-Level-of-Evidence.aspx. Accessed April 8, 2020
    PubMed
  • 14 InCites Journal Citation Reports. Thomson Reuters. Available at: https://jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com/. Accessed April 8, 2020
    PubMed
  • 15 Galatz LM, Ball CM, Teefey SA, Middleton WD, Yamaguchi K. The outcome and repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86 (02) 219-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Takahara M, Mura N, Sasaki J, Harada M, Ogino T. Classification, treatment, and outcome of osteochondritis dissecans of the humeral capitellum. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90 (suppl 2, Pt 1) 47-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Chung KC, Pillsbury MS, Walters MR, Hayward RA. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am 1998; 23 (04) 575-587
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gu W, Yuan Y, Yang H, Qi G, Jin X, Yan J. A bibliometric analysis of the 100 most influential papers on COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2015; 10: 667-676
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Qu Y, Zhang C, Hu Z. et al. The 100 most influential publications in asthma from 1960 to 2017: a bibliometric analysis. Respir Med 2018; 137: 206-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Brinjikji W, Klunder A, Kallmes DF. The 100 most-cited articles in the imaging literature. Radiology 2013; 269 (01) 272-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Fenton JE, Roy D, Hughes JP, Jones AS. A century of citation classics in otolaryngology-head and neck Surgery journals. J Laryngol Otol 2002; 116 (07) 494-498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Loonen MPJ, Hage JJ, Kon M. Plastic surgery classics: characteristics of 50 top-cited articles in four plastic surgery journals since 1946. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121 (05) 320e-327e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ahmad SS, Evangelopoulos DS, Abbasian M, Röder C, Kohl S. The hundred most-cited publications in orthopaedic knee research. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (22) e190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Vielgut I, Dauwe J, Leithner A, Holzer LA. The fifty highest cited papers in anterior cruciate ligament injury. Int Orthop 2017; 41 (07) 1405-1412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Murray MR, Wang T, Schroeder GD, Hsu WK. The 100 most cited spine articles. Eur Spine J 2012; 21 (10) 2059-2069
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kelly JC, Glynn RW, O’Briain DE, Felle P, McCabe JP. The 100 classic papers of orthopaedic surgery: a bibliometric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (10) 1338-1343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mehlman CT, Wenger DR. The top 25 at 25: citation classics in the Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics. J Pediatr Orthop 2006; 26 (05) 691-694
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Lifchez SD, Friedrich JB, Hultman CS. The scope of practice of hand surgery within plastic surgery: the ACAPS national survey to assess current practice and develop educational guidelines. Ann Plast Surg 2015; 74 (01) 89-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Shah NV, Solow M, Kelly JJ. et al. Demographics and rates of surgical arthroscopy and postoperative rehabilitative preferences of arthroscopists from the Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA). J Orthop 2018; 15 (02) 591-595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Tang X, Gong W, Yuan F. et al. Top-cited articles in digestive system disease from 1950 to 2013. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 31 (01) 107-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sur RL, Dahm P. History of evidence-based medicine. Indian J Urol 2011; 27 (04) 487-489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 DeFroda SF, Shah KN, Safdar O, Mulcahey MK. Trends in research productivity of residents applying for orthopedic sports medicine fellowship. Phys Sportsmed 2018; 46 (01) 61-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kohlert S, Zuccaro L, McLean L, Macdonald K. Does medical school research productivity predict a resident’s research productivity during residency?. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 46 (01) 34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Finkler ES, Fogel HA, Kroin E. et al. Factors influencing the number of applications submitted per applicant to orthopedic residency programs. Med Educ Online 2016; 21: 31865
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Browner BD. The Bone and Joint Decade, 2000–2010. J Bone Jt Surg Am 1999; 81-A (07) 903-904
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Kavanagh RG, Kelly JC, Kelly PM, Moore DP. The 100 classic papers of pediatric orthopaedic surgery: a bibliometric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (18) e134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Huo YQ, Pan XH, Li QB. et al. Fifty top-cited classic papers in orthopedic elbow surgery: A bibliometric analysis. Int J Surg 2015; 18: 28-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Hohmann E, Glatt V, Tetsworth K. Worldwide orthopaedic research activity 2010-2014: Publication rates in the top 15 orthopaedic journals related to population size and gross domestic product. World J Orthop 2017; 8 (06) 514-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Poolman RW, Struijs PAA, Krips R, Sierevelt IN, Lutz KH, Bhandari M. Does a “Level I Evidence” rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials?. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6: 44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Bhandari M, Richards RR, Sprague S, Schemitsch EH. The quality of reporting of randomized trials in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 1988 through 2000. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84 (03) 388-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar