International orthopaedic journals: a 15-year review

Worldwide orthopaedic research activity 2010-2014: Publication rates in the top 15 orthopaedic journals related to population size and gross domestic product

AIM

To perform a bibliometric analysis of publications rates in orthopedics in the top 15 orthopaedic journals.

METHODS

Based on their 2015 impact factor, the fifteen highest ranked orthopaedic journals between January 2010 and December 2014 were used to establish the total number of publications; cumulative impact factor points (IF) per country were determined, and normalized to population size, GDP, and GDP/capita, comparison to the median country output and the global leader.

RESULTS

Twenty-three thousand and twenty-one orthopaedic articles were published, with 66 countries publishing. The United States had 8149 publications, followed by the United Kingdom (1644) and Japan (1467). The highest IF was achieved by the United States (24744), United Kingdom (4776), and Japan (4053). Normalized by population size Switzerland lead. Normalized by GDP, Croatia was the top achiever. Adjusting GDP/capita, for publications and IF, China, India, and the United States were the leaders. Adjusting for population size and GDP, 28 countries achieved numbers of publications to be considered at least equivalent with the median academic output. Adjusting GDP/capita only China and India reached the number of publications to be considered equivalent to the current global leader, the United States.

CONCLUSION

Five countries were responsible for 60% of the orthopaedic research output over this 5-year period. After correcting for GDP/capita, only 28 of 66 countries achieved a publication rate equivalent to the median country. The United States, United Kingdom, South Korea, Japan, and Germany were the top five countries for both publication totals and cumulative impact factor points.

Assessing the evolution of scientific publications in orthopedics journals from mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan: a 12-year survey of the literature

Background

In China, the field of orthopedics has experienced significant growth over the past 12 years. However, the recent status of research on orthopedics among individuals in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan is unknown. In this study, we investigated characteristics and trends of orthopedics publications from these three regions.

Methods

Between 2003 and 2014, all articles published in 63 orthopedics journals originating from mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were identified via Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) database. A survey was conducted to systematically analyze the published orthopedics articles from the three regions according to the numbers of articles, study design, impact factors (IFs), citations, most prolific authors, and institutions. Additionally, we evaluated global trends in orthopedics publications, and ranked top 10 countries in terms of the total number of published articles over 12 years and the number of published articles per year.

Results

A total number of 123,317 articles were published in the 63 orthopedics journals between 2003 and 2014. The worldwide number of annually published orthopedics articles tended to increase during the study period. The total number of orthopedics publications from the three regions, especially in mainland China, increased markedly from 2003 to 2014. The annual number of orthopedics articles from mainland China increased from 6 in 2003 to 813 in 2014, Hong Kong increased from 32 in 2003 to 71 in 2014, and Taiwan increased from 68 in 2003 to 168 in 2014. For accumulated IFs and total citations of articles, mainland China ranked the first place, followed by Taiwan and Hong Kong. However, publications from Taiwan had the highest average citations per article, and publications from Hong Kong had the highest average IFs. Among the top 10 most prolific authors and institutions, 4 authors and 4 institutions were from Taiwan, 3 authors and 4 institutions were from mainland China, and 3 authors and 2 institutions were from Hong Kong.

Conclusions

The quantity of articles published in international orthopedics journals from mainland China presented a remarkable upward trend during the past 12 years. Given the relative size of the populations, it should be emphasized that mainland China still has a long way to go to achieve the academic performance of Hong Kong and Taiwan.

How many orthopedic surgeons does it take to write a research article? 50 years of authorship proliferation in and internationalization of the orthopedic surgery literature

Publications are considered to indicate academic achievement and can lead to various rewards, including job opportunities and research funding. Recent years have seen a rising trend in the number of articles published, multiple authorship, and internationalization of the biomedical literature. The goal of this study was to analyze the trends in authorship over the past 50 years to determine whether the orthopedic literature parallels trends seen in other areas of the biomedical literature. We performed an observational study with analysis of the number of authors and geographic origin of articles published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery British Volume (JBJS) and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (CORR). We analyzed 2776 articles (CORR, n=1809; JBJS, n=967) published between 1958 and 2008 at 10-year intervals. There has been a significant increase in the mean number of authors per article from 1.638 to 4.08 (P<.0001) and 1.633 to 4.540 (P<.0001) for CORR and JBJS, respectively between 1958 and 2008. There has been a significant increase in the international contribution to both journals (P<.0001). The number of countries contributing to articles increased from 5 to 39 and from 17 to 33 for CORR and JBJS, respectively. These findings are similar to other areas of the biomedical literature. The reasons for this proliferation are multifactorial, including multicenter trials and inappropriate authorship. Guidelines for authorship and preparation of manuscripts from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors or from individual journals are widely available, and every effort should be made to adhere to them to prevent inappropriate authorship proliferation in the future.

Anterior release of the elbow for extension loss

BACKGROUND

There are many causes of elbow contracture. When nonoperative techniques fail to increase the arc of motion of the elbow, surgical intervention may be indicated. The purpose of this study was to report the outcomes of surgical correction, predominantly with an anterior release, of elbow flexion contractures. In addition, we evaluated the efficacy of continuous passive motion in the immediate postoperative period.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 106 consecutive patients who had undergone anterior elbow release for the treatment of a flexion contracture between July 1975 and June 2001. Twenty-nine patients were excluded because they had been followed for less than twelve months, leaving a study group of seventy-seven patients. Postoperatively, fifty-four of the seventy-seven patients were treated with continuous passive motion and the other twenty-three patients were treated with extension splinting. The average duration of follow-up was thirty-three months. The average patient age was thirty-four years. The results were evaluated on the basis of both preoperative and postoperative radiographs as well as clinical measurements of elbow motion, all performed by the same examiner using the same large (47-cm-long) goniometer.

RESULTS

The mean preoperative extension in the seventy-seven patients was 52 degrees, which decreased to 20 degrees postoperatively. The mean flexion increased from 111 degrees preoperatively to 117 degrees postoperatively, and the mean total arc of motion increased from 59 degrees to 97 degrees. The total arc of motion in the patients treated with continuous passive motion increased 45 degrees, compared with an increase of 26 degrees in those treated with extension splinting. There were eleven complications in ten patients. The majority were traction neuropathies. There were two infections (one superficial and one deep), both of which resolved following treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Release of a pathologically thickened anterior elbow capsule through a predominantly anterior approach to correct diminished elbow extension is a safe and effective technique. Furthermore, compared with splinting in extension alone, the utilization of continuous passive motion during the postoperative period increases the total arc of motion.