Impact factors of orthopaedic journals between 2010 and 2016: trends and comparisons with other surgical specialties

Seventy Percent of Abstracts Presented at the AANA Annual Meeting Are Later Published

Purpose

To assess the future publication rates of abstracts presented at AANA annual meetings between 2015 and 2019.

Methods

Abstracts presented at the 2015-2019 AANA annual meetings were identified. The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for a corresponding manuscript for each abstract using the name of the first author, abstract title, and keywords. A level of evidence and anatomic category were assigned to each abstract. For each corresponding manuscript identified, the authors, journal of publication, journal impact factor (IF), time to publication, and number of citations were recorded.

Results

Overall, 70.5% of abstracts presented at the 2015-2019 AANA annual meetings (275 of 390) went on to future publication, with 63.6% (248 of 390) achieving publication within 3 years. The median time to publication from presentation was 12.8 months. Arthroscopy (29.8%) was the most frequent journal of publication. The average IF of publishing journals was 4.92 ± 3.41, with 61.8% of manuscripts (170 of 275) published in journals with an IF of at least 4.00. Published manuscripts received an average of 36.30 ± 47.6 citations per manuscript. A stronger level of evidence was associated with an increased likelihood of future publication (P = .008).

Conclusions

Pre-publication literature presented at the AANA annual meetings has continued to be associated with a strong likelihood of future publication in Arthroscopy and Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation, as well as other respected peer-reviewed journals.

Clinical Relevance

Exposure to pre-publication literature may have an impact on clinical management. It is important to understand the quality of research presented in abstracts from AANA annual meetings. Knowing how many abstracts are ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals provides an indicator of the quality and reliability of the research.

Comparing Orthopaedic Randomized Control Trials Published in High-Impact Medical and Orthopaedic Journals

INTRODUCTION

Orthopaedic studies published in high-impact medical journals are often believed to have a high prevalence of negative or neutral results and possess methodological characteristics that may bias toward nonsurgical treatments. The purpose of this study was to compare study characteristics, methodologic quality, exposure, and outcome direction among orthopaedic randomized control trials (RCTs) published in high-impact medical and orthopaedic journals and to identify study attributes associated with greater impact.

METHODS

RCTs published between January 2010 and December 2020 in the five medical journals and 10 orthopaedic journals with the highest 5-year impact factors were analyzed. Inclusion criteria were RCTs reporting on orthopaedic surgical intervention compared with nonsurgical or less-invasive surgical procedures. Study characteristics, methodologic quality (Jadad scale), outcomes, and altmetric data were collected. Primary outcomes were categorized as positive (favoring surgical/more-extensive surgery), negative (favoring nonsurgical/less-extensive surgery), or neutral.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-eight RCTs were analyzed; 26 from medical and 102 from orthopaedic journals. Studies published in medical journals included more authors ( P < 0.001), larger sample sizes ( P < 0.001), more institutions ( P < 0.001), and more often received funding ( P < 0.001). The average Jadad scale did not significantly differ between journals ( P = 0.14). The direction of the primary study outcome did not differ between journals ( P = 0.22). Average AAS and annual citation rates were higher in RCTs published in medical journals ( P < 0.001). Publication in a medical journal was the only covariate associated with higher annual citation rates ( P < 0.001) and AAS ( P < 0.001) on multivariable analyses.

DISCUSSION

High-impact medical journals do not publish orthopaedic RCTs with negative or neutral findings at a rate that significantly differs from orthopaedic journals. However, the higher impact and digital coverage of the studies published in medical journals may disproportionally influence the practices of nonorthopaedic providers. Raising awareness of critical findings published in orthopaedic journals may be particularly important for improving healthcare policies and orthopaedic referral patterns for musculoskeletal problems.

Global Trends and Hotspots on Microglia Associated with Pain from 2002 to 2022: A Bibliometric Analysis

Background

Researchers have made significant progress in microglia associated with pain in recent years. However, more relevant bibliometric analyses are still needed on trends and directions in this field. The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive perspective and to predict future directions of pain-related microglia research via bibliometric tools.

Methods

English articles and reviews related with pain and microglia were extracted from the Web of Science core collection (WosCC) database between 2002 to 2022. Bibliometric tools such as VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and Bibliometrix R package were used to analyze publication characteristics, countries, authors, institutions, journals, research hotspots, and trend topics.

Results

A total of 2761 articles were included in this analysis. Research on microglia associated with pain has increased significantly over the last two decades. China (n = 1020, 36.94%) and the United States (n = 751, 27.20%) contributed the most in terms of publications and citations, respectively. Kyushu University published the most articles in this field compared to other institutions, and Professor Inoue Kazuhide (n = 54) at this university made outstanding contributions in this field. Molecular Pain (n = 113) was the journal with the most publication, while Journal of Neuroscience had the highest number of citations. According to the authors keywords analysis, the research in this area can be summarized into 7 clusters such as "microglia activation pathways", "pain treatment research", "mental symptoms of chronic pain", and so on.

Conclusion

This study provides a comprehensive analysis of pain-related microglia research in the past two decades. We identified the countries, institutions, scholars, and journals with the highest number of publications and the most influence in the field, and the research trends identified in this paper may provide new insights for future research.

Subgroup analysis of scientific performance in the field of arthroplasty

Introduction

Arthroplasty is the final treatment option for maintaining mobility and quality of life in many primary degenerative and (post-) traumatic joint diseases. Identification of research output and potential deficits for specific subspecialties may be an important measure to achieve long-term improvement of patient care in this field.

Methods

Using specific search terms and Boolean operators, all studies published since 1945 to the subgroups of arthroplasty listed in the Web of Science Core Collection were included. All identified publications were analysed according to bibliometric standards, and comparative conclusions were drawn regarding the scientific merit of each subgroup.

Results

Most publications investigated the subgroups of septic surgery and materials followed by approach, navigation, aseptic loosening, robotic and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). In the last 5 years, research in the fields of robotic and ERAS achieved the highest relative increase in publications In contrast, research on aseptic loosening has continued to lose interest over the last 5 years. Publications on robotics and materials received the most funding on average while those on aseptic loosening received the least. Most publications originated from USA, Germany, and England, except for research on ERAS in which Denmark stood out. Relatively, publications on aseptic loosening received the most citations, whereas the absolute scientific interest was highest for the topic infection.

Discussion

In this bibliometric subgroup analysis, the primary scientific outputs focused on septic complications and materials research in the field of arthroplasty. With decreasing publication output and the least financial support, intensification of research on aseptic loosening is urgently recommended.

The Altmetric Attention Score Is Associated With Citation Rates and May Reflect Academic Impact in the Total Joint Arthroplasty Literature

Background: Given the increasing interest and potential use of social media for the promotion of orthopedic literature, there is a need to better understand Altmetrics. Purposes: We sought to determine the relationship between the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and the number of citations for articles on total joint arthroplasty (TJA) published in orthopedics journals. We also sought to determine the predictors of greater social media attention for these articles. Methods: Articles on TJA published in Bone and Joint Journal (BJJ), Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS), Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research (CORR), Journal of Arthroplasty, Journal of Knee Surgery, Hip International, and Acta Orthopaedica in 2016 were extracted (n = 498). One-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni corrections was used to compare AAS and citations across journals. Multivariate regressions were used to determine predictors of social media attention and number of citations. Results: The mean AAS and number of citations were 7.5 (range: 0-289) and 16.7 (range: 0-156), respectively. Significant between-group effects were observed according to journal for AAS and number of citations. Publishing an article in JBJS was the strongest predictor of higher number of citations. Publishing an article in BJJ was the only independent predictor of higher AAS, while publishing an article in JBJS or CORR trended toward statistical significance. A higher AAS was a significant predictor of a higher number of citations. Number of citations and number of study references were positive predictors of greater social media attention on Twitter and Facebook. Conclusions: In articles on TJA published in 7 journals in 2016, a higher AAS was a associated with a higher number of citations. Various bibliometric characteristics were found to be significantly associated with greater social media attention; the most common influences were number of citations and number of references. Researchers in orthopedics can use this information when considering how to assess the impact of their work.

Twitter Use Among Orthopedic Surgery Journals Correlates With Increased Citation Rates

Use of alternative online means of distribution for research is a rapidly evolving area in orthopedics. In this study, we investigate the impact of Twitter on research citation rates and the association between Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and citation rates across major orthopedic journals. Original research articles published in a selection of 10 journals between January 2018 and December 2018 were analyzed for number and source of tweets, AAS, and number of citations. We determined the relationship between Twitter use of different sources and number of citations across all journals and within each individual journal, any statistical differences in citations and AAS for tweeted vs nontweeted articles, and the correlation between journal impact factor and average number of monthly tweets. We included 2916 articles in our study, at an average of 26 months after publication. The mean AAS was 9.7 (SD, 45.1; range, 0-1125), and mean citation rate was 6.4 (SD, 8.5; range, 0-166). Impact factor was strongly correlated with average monthly tweets (r²=0.77). Tweeted articles received 8.51 citations on average, compared with 2.56 citations for nontweeted articles (P<.05). Tweets sent by the author/department had the highest impact on future citations (P<.01). Tweets by news outlets had a smaller, positive effect on citations (P<.01). Tweets sent by Arthroscopy (P<.01) and Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics (P<.01) had high impacts compared with other journals. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(1):e38-e44.].

The 50 Most-Cited Articles Regarding Hip Resurfacing

Background

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty is an accepted treatment option for young patients presenting with osteoarthritis of the hip. The purpose of this review was to evaluate and identify the top 50 most-cited articles pertaining to hip resurfacing, to help clinicians identify influential articles and navigate the literature more effectively.

Material and methods

Clarivate Analytics Web of Science was used to identify all articles related to hip resurfacing. The screening was based on the number of citations for each article. The final list of articles was further reviewed, and further data including manuscript title, authors, total citation count, year of publication, journal, country of origin, and level of evidence were extracted.

Results

The most-cited publication was “Pseudotumors associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings”, which was cited 704 times. The average total number of citations per publication was 203. The most prolific publication year was 2008 with 8 publications, and the most recent article was published in 2012. The journals with the most attributable publications were Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and Clinical and Orthopedic Related Research.

Conclusions

This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the most-cited articles pertaining to hip resurfacing.

Level of evidence

III.

Characteristics and Trends of the Most Cited Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research Articles

Background

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research is one of the most influential and reputable scientific journals in the field of orthopaedics. Some of the most reputable publications related to orthopaedic research can be attributed to this journal and it continues to have a significant impact on modern research.

Objective

The purpose of this study is to identify the most influential articles, in terms of number of citations, published by Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. The goal of analyzing the most cited articles in is to create a baseline for future researchers to build upon and to uncover any trends in orthopaedic research.

Methods

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines were used to structure the data collection and analysis of this study. The Scopus database was used to compile the publication data. Data was then exported to an excel sheet to be further analyzed via a multi-author review process.

Results

The most cited article was “A Clinical Method of Functional Assessment of the Shoulder” by Constant et al.. The 50 articles analyzed in this study were cited a total of 32,404 times, averaging 719 citations per year, per publication. The oldest article was published in 1971, and the newest in 2008. The United States was the country with the most attributable publications and The University of Florida was the most contributory institution.

Conclusions

Our study recognizes Clinical Orthopaedics and Related research as having a strong predilection for older articles and a continued strength for modern publications.

Characteristics and Trends of the Most Cited Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Articles

Purpose

To compile and analyze the top 50 most frequently cited articles published in the Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy journal.

Methods

Guidelines set by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews were used as the foundation for data collection and analysis. Scopus database was used to acquire the metric analyzed in the study. Once collected, the data was exported to an excel sheet in order to be organized, sorted, and analyzed in accordance with the metrics of interest.

Results

The United States was the most contributory nation with 14 publications, followed by Sweden with13 publications and Germany with eight publications. The most contributory institution was Umeå University in Vasterbottens, Sweden (8) followed by National Institute for Working Life in Stockholm, Sweden (7) and The University of Pittsburgh (5). Most publications were either Level II (19) or Level III (19) in terms of Level of Evidence. There was only one publication that was classified as a Level I paper.

Conclusion

The Journal of Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, and Arthroscopy has published very influential research papers as noted by the number of citations amassed by its most popular articles. KSSTA's top cited publications hail largely from major European and United States institutions and are composed of high-quality reports of mostly Level 2 and Level 3 evidence classifications.

Level of Evidence

3.

Institution Origin and Medical School Rank Impact the Citation Frequency and Publication Rate in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Journals

Purpose

To examine the trends between various categories of institutions with their respective published orthopaedic sports medicine content and to determine the publication output and citation rate from the 25 highest-ranked medical schools compared with lower-ranked institutions.

Methods

Publications between 2015 and 2019 from the American Journal of Sports Medicine, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, and Arthroscopy were categorized into university/university affiliated hospitals, non-university affiliated teaching hospitals, public/semi-government research institutes, nonprofit research institutes, private sector institutions, government institutions, and other institutions. Citation rates were collected from PubMed for the first and corresponding author. Similarly, corresponding authors were stratified by U.S. News and World Report 2021 medical school research rankings.

Results

Of the 12,152 publications identified, 5,044 publications met the inclusion criteria. Nonprofit research institutions garnered the greatest number of citations on average (6.44 based on first author, SD 8.83, n = 214; 6.62 based on corresponding author, SD 9.65, n = 208; P < .001), while university/university-affiliated hospitals produced the majority of published articles (77.0% based on first author, 76.8% based on corresponding author), but had lower average citation rates (4.48 based on first author, SD 6.67, n = 3,886; 4.44 based on corresponding author, SD 6.55, n = 3,873; P < .001). Furthermore, of 1953 medical school publications, the top 25 accounted for 53.1% of publications; however, there was no statistical difference between their citation rates and those of lower rankings (P = 0.47).

Conclusions

Publications are cited at different rates, depending on their institution of origin. In addition, high-ranking medical schools produce a disproportionately greater output of publications than lower-ranking schools, but there is no statistically significant difference in citation rates on an individual publication basis.

Clinical Relevance

Knowing how an institution’s ranking influences publication and citation rates can help us understand bias in the scientific literature.

Publication rate of abstracts presented at the Australian Orthopaedic Association Annual Scientific Meeting

BACKGROUND

Presentations at scientific conferences are an important method of research dissemination, with abstracts often used to inform clinical practice. Abstract to publication ratio is a commonly used tool for determining meeting quality. The aim of this study was to determine the publication rate for abstracts presented at the Australian Orthopaedic Association Annual Scientific Meeting (AOA ASM) between 2012 and 2015 inclusive and identify reasons for non-publication.

METHODS

MEDLINE, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched to determine whether each abstract presented at AOA ASMs between 2012 and 2015 was associated with a full text publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Where a publication could not be located, the presenter was contacted to confirm the reason for non-publication.

RESULTS

A total of 1130 abstracts were submitted (951 oral and 179 posters), and 573 resulted in full-text peer-reviewed publications (51%). The majority of publications (73%) were published within 2 years of presentation. There was no difference in likelihood of publication for oral presentations compared to posters, nor in the rate of publication across the 4 years of meetings. Common reasons for non-publication were lack of time (32%), publication considered low priority (27%) and journal rejections (22%).

CONCLUSION

The overall publication rate for abstracts presented at the AOA ASM is 51%, which is an increase from the 1998 ASM (31%). This publication rate is higher than many similar Australian meetings and on par with other international orthopaedic and subspecialty meetings. Future research should investigate potential publication bias and methods to minimise barriers to publication.

The reliability of the Neer classification for proximal humerus fractures: A survey of orthopedic shoulder surgeons

Background

The Neer classification is among the most widely used systems to describe proximal humerus fractures (PHF) despite the poor interobserver agreement. The purpose of this study was to verify whether or not blinded shoulder surgeons and trainees agree with the authors of articles published in the highest impact-factor orthopedic journals.

Methods

All articles regarding PHF published between 2017 and 2019 in the top 10 orthopedic journals as rated by impact factor were searched. Articles were included if the authors used the Neer classification to describe at least 1 PHF in the figures. Figures were extracted without the legend, and X-rays ± computed tomography scan images were included when available. An international survey was conducted among 138 shoulder surgeons who were asked to record the Neer classification for each de-identified radiograph in the publications. The type of fracture mentioned in the legend of the published figure was considered as the gold standard.

Results

Survey participants agreed with the published article authors in 55% of cases overall (range 6%-96%, n = 35). The most common response disagreed with the article authors in 13 cases (37%), underestimating the number of parts in 11 of 13 cases. The interobserver agreement between the 138 responders was fair (k = 0.296). There was an association between the percentage of concordant answers and greater experience (number of years of shoulder surgery practice) of the responders (P = .0023). The number of parts, the number or type of available imaging modalities, and the geographic origin of participants did not influence the agreement between responders and authors.

Discussion

In more than one-third of cases, specialized shoulder surgeons disagree with article authors when interpreting the Neer classification of de-identified images of PHF in published manuscripts. Morphologic classification of PHF as the sole basis for treatment algorithms and surgical success should be scrutinized.

Twitter Mentions Influence Academic Citation Count of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Publications

Background

Social media use among scholars and journals is growing and has augmented the academic impact of published articles in several areas of medicine. However, the influence of social media postings on academic citations of shoulder and elbow surgery publications is not known. In this study, we sought (1) to quantify the adoption of Twitter use for the dissemination of research publications by three prominent shoulder and elbow surgery journals and (2) to determine the correlation between Twitter mentions and academic citations in shoulder and elbow surgery publications.

Methodology

A total of 396 original research articles from three shoulder and elbow surgery journals (Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (JSES), Shoulder & Elbow, and JSES International) published in 2018 were assessed 34 to 45 months after print publication. For each article, the total number of Twitter mentions were obtained using Altmetric Bookmarklet and grouped into those tweeted by authors, an official outlet, or a third party. Article citation data was obtained using the Google Scholar search engine. Pearson correlation was used to determine the association between the number of Twitter mentions and citation count.

Results

Of all articles, 51% (202/396) had at least one Twitter mention. Of all Twitter mentions, 12.7% (367/2,879) occurred within the first week of online publication dates, while 51.5% (1,482/2,879) occurred between online and print publication dates. Articles mentioned on Twitter had 1.3-fold more Google Scholar citations (17.7 ± 15.2) than articles with no Twitter mentions (14.0 ± 15.7) (p = 0.017). The number of Twitter mentions had a weakly positive correlation with academic citation count (r = 0.25; p < 0.001). No significant difference in academic citation rates was found between articles tweeted by authors or official outlets when compared to articles tweeted by a third party only (p = 0.97 and p = 0.34, respectively).

Conclusions

Approximately half of shoulder and elbow surgery publications are shared on Twitter, with the majority of the activity occurring prior to their print publication date. The finding that tweeted articles have more academic citations within three years of release suggests that social media activity seems to amplify the academic impact of shoulder and elbow surgery publications.

Infographics Are More Effective at Increasing Social Media Attention in Comparison With Original Research Articles: An Altmetrics-Based Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare social media attention and citation rates between infographics (visual abstracts) and original research articles.

METHODS

All infographics in 2019 from electronic versions of Arthroscopy were matched by topic to articles in the "Original Research" section of the journal in a 4:1 ratio within the same year. The primary outcome was the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), a cumulative measure of social media attention from various platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. Secondary outcomes included citation rates, article characteristics, and number of shares on social media platforms. Independent t tests and χ² analyses were used to compare primary and secondary outcomes between infographics and control articles. Multivariate linear regression analysis was performed to determine the association between article type and social media attention while controlling for bibliometric characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 60 matched research articles (n = 48, 80.0%) and infographics (n = 12, 20.0%) published in 2019 in Arthroscopy were included. The mean AAS among all infographics was 29.75 ± 32.84 (range, 3-118), whereas the mean AAS among all control research articles was 5.75 ± 8.90 (range, 0-41), representing a statistically significant difference (P < .001). Infographics had significantly more Twitter mentions (100% vs 70.8%, P < .001) and Facebook mentions (75% vs. 6.2%, P < .001) compared with original articles. Multivariate linear regression analysis demonstrated a statistically significant and positive association between AAS and article type, with an additional mean increase in the AAS of 33.7 (95% confidence interval 11.6-50.6; P = .003) for every infographic article compared with an original research article. The mean citation rate among all infographics was 2.4 ± 2.4 (range, 0-7), whereas the mean citation rate among all control research articles was 2.2 ± 4.0 (range, 0-27), which was not a significant difference (P = .69).

CONCLUSIONS

Infographics resulted in significantly greater AAS and social media attention in comparison with original research articles of similar topics. We recommend the routine creation of infographics by journals to increase the social media attention that their research and chosen topics of interest receive. However, viewers of infographics should read them out of interest but turn their attention toward the original article or a source of more detailed information before making changes in clinical decision-making or practice, as they can be oversimplified.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Infographics are an increasingly used by journals as a form of depicting research findings from select studies. By producing infographics, journals may increase the amount of social media attention received for a particular study or topic of interest.

Orthopaedic Randomized Controlled Trials Published in General Medical Journals Are Associated With Higher Altmetric Attention Scores and Social Media Attention Than Nonorthopaedic Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

To (1) compare the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and citation rates between orthopaedic and nonorthopaedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 5 high-impact medical journals and (2) identify general characteristics of these articles associated with greater exposure on social media platforms.

METHODS

Articles published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Annals of Internal Medicine, and Archives of Internal Medicine between January 2011 and December 2016 were analyzed. These journals were selected based on retaining high impact factors with rigorous publication standards and availability of the AAS for their publications. The queried time frame was chosen to balance the inception of the AAS with an optimal period for citation accrual. A total of 14 article characteristics, in addition to number of Tweets, Facebook shares, news mentions, and the AAS, were extracted. Inclusion criteria were orthopaedic RCTs reporting on outcomes after surgical intervention. Linear regression was used to assess the relationship between publication characteristics and the AAS and social media attention.

RESULTS

A total of 9 orthopaedic and 59 nonorthopaedic RCTs were included. The mean AASs were significantly different (574 ± 565.7 versus 256.9 ± 222.3, P = .003), whereas citation rate was not (192.2 ± 117.1 versus 382.3 ± 560.3, P = .317). Orthopaedic RCTs had a significantly greater number of mentions on Twitter and Facebook (P < .001). A higher AAS significantly associated with a greater number of citations (β = 0.75, P = .019) for orthopaedic RCTs. The mean AAS of orthopaedic RCTs favoring nonoperative management (809.6 ± 676.3) was greater than those favoring operative treatment (292.0 ± 248.9) but was not statistically significant (P = .361).

CONCLUSION

Orthopaedic RCTs published in 5 high-impact general medical journals had a significantly greater mean AAS relative to nonorthopaedic RCTs, with no differences in citation rates. Additionally, there was a strong association between the AAS and citation rate of orthopaedic RCTs. Orthopaedic RCTs had greater social media exposure on both Twitter and Facebook.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Orthopaedic surgeons, researchers, and providers who publish RCTs in high-impact medical journals can anticipate extensive social media attention for their articles relative to other nonorthopaedic RCTs in the same journals. Social media attention may be related to operative versus nonoperative management topics. This study provides further evidence for the increasing use of the AAS and its association with citation accrual.

The Evolving Trends in the Impact Factor of Plastic Surgery Journals: A 22-Year Analysis

BACKGROUND

The journal impact factor (IF) is one of the most widely adopted metrics to assess journal value. We aimed to investigate the trends in the IF and ranking of plastic surgery journals (PSJs) over a 22-year period.

METHODS

The Journal Citation Report 2018 was used to identify all journals within the field of plastic surgery from 1997 to 2018. We analyzed the IF of PSJs and that of the category surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 34 PSJs were identified. The mean IF increased from 0.584 (median, 0.533) in 1997 to 1.58 (median, 1.399) in 2018 (P < 0.0001). Over the same time, the median IF of the journals in the category surgery increased from 0.914 to 1.883. The mean journal IF percentile of PSJs within surgery remained fairly stable (P = 0.999). A strong positive correlation was identified between the IF of PSJs and both the 5-year IF (r = 0.943, P < 0.0001) and the immediacy index (r = 0.736, P < 0.0001). The percentage of self-citations across the study period was fairly stable at a mean of 19.2%. A weak positive correlation was found between the IF and the percentage of self-citations (r = 0.171, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The mean journal IF in PSJs has been trending upward over the last 22 years. Ranking of PSJs IF within the category surgery has remained unchanged. The self-citation rate has been fairly stable and correlated weakly with the IF. A strong positive correlation exists between the IF and both the immediacy index and the 5-year IF.

Twenty Five-Year Publication Trends in Foot and Ankle Literature: Improved Methodological Quality and Internationality With Time

Background:

Methodological quality and author internationality are increasing in orthopaedic surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality and author geography trends from 1994 to 2019 in high-quality foot and ankle journals.

Methods:

Analyses of 1,242 foot and ankle publications in Foot and Ankle International, American Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and American Journal of Sports Medicine were done for 1994, 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014, and 2019. Articles were classified according to study type, level of evidence (LOE), and author's country of publication.

Results:

The most common clinical study was therapeutic (65.4). Significant increases were noted in the proportion of therapeutic (P < 0.01) and prognostic (P < 0.01) articles. The average LOE increased from 3.96 ± 1.01 to 3.19 ± 0.97 (P < 0.01). The proportion of Level I (P = 0.29) and level IV articles (P = 0.21) remained constant, level II (P < 0.01) and level III (P < 0.01) articles increased, and level V (P < 0.01) articles decreased. United States authorship decreased from 78.1% in 1994 to 44.8% in 2009, then remained constant through 2019 (P < 0.01).

Conclusion:

This study demonstrated an improvement in LOE of foot and ankle publications across a 25-year period in three high-quality orthopaedic journals. Increasing internationality was also observed.

Publication Characteristics of Foot and Ankle Trauma Publications: A Review of Articles From 1997 to 2017

Background

The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare publishing characteristics in foot and ankle trauma articles published in two subspecialty journals and two general orthopedic journals.

Methods

All trauma articles related to foot and ankle surgery published from five different time intervals over a 20-year period were collected and the following was analyzed: authorship, level of evidence, type of study, citations, and geographic region.

Results

Foot and Ankle International (FAI) had the highest percentage of last and corresponding authors that were fellowship-trained in foot and ankle. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American and British volumes (JBJS(A) and JBJS(B), respectively) and the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (JOT) articles had a higher percentage of last and corresponding authors that were fellowship-trained in trauma.

Conclusion

Foot and ankle-trained authors are currently under-represented in foot and ankle trauma literature. As the field of foot and ankle continues to grow, it is important that the experts in the field are well represented in the literature.

Altmetrics Attention Scores for Randomized Controlled Trials in Total Joint Arthroplasty Are Reflective of High Scientific Quality: An Altmetrics-Based Methodological Quality and Bias Analysis

The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) has been associated with citation rates across medical and surgical disciplines. However, factors that drive high AAS remain poorly understood and there remains multiple pitfalls to correlating these metrics alone with the quality of a study. The purpose of the current study was to determine the relationship between methodologic and study biases and the AAS in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in total joint arthroplasty journals.

What Is the Predictive Ability and Academic Impact of the Altmetrics Score and Social Media Attention?

BACKGROUND

Citation rate and journal impact factor have traditionally been used to assess research impact; however, these may fail to represent impact beyond the sphere of academics. Given that social media is now used to disseminate research, alternative web-based metrics (altmetrics) were recently developed to better understand research impact on social media. However, the relationship between altmetrics and traditional bibliometrics in orthopaedic literature is poorly understood.

PURPOSE

To (1) assess the extent that altmetrics correlate with traditional bibliometrics and (2) identify publication characteristics that predict greater altmetrics scores.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Articles published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM), The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Acta Orthopaedica, and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy between January 2016 and December 2016 were analyzed. Among the extracted publication characteristics were journal, number of authors, geographic region of origin, highest degree of first author, study subject and design, sample size, conflicts of interest, and level of evidence; number of references, institutions, citations, tweets, Facebook mentions, and news mentions; and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). Multivariate regressions were used to determine (1) publication characteristics predictive of AAS and social media attention (mentions on Twitter, Facebook, and the news) and (2) the relationship between AAS and citation rate.

RESULTS

A total of 496 published articles were included, with a mean AAS of 8.6 (SD, 31.7; range, 0-501) and a mean citation rate of 15.0 (SD, 16.1; range, 0-178). Articles in AJSM (β = 19.9; P < .001), publications from North America (β = 8.5; P = .033), and studies concerning measure validation/reliability (β = 25.5; P = .004) were independently associated with higher AAS. Greater AAS score significantly predicted a greater citation rate (β = 0.16; P < .0001). The citation rate was an independent predictor of greater social media attention on Twitter, Facebook, and the news (odds ratio range, 1.02-1.03; P < .05 all).

CONCLUSION

AAS had a significant positive association with citation rates of articles in 5 high-impact orthopaedic journals. Articles in AJSM, studies concerning measure validation and reliability, and publications from North America were positively associated with greater AAS. A greater number of citations was consistently associated with publication attention received on social media platforms.

The most influential papers in direct anterior approach to total hip arthroplasty

Background

Citation analysis is a commonly used method for appraising the impact of academic publications within a particular field of study. A gap exists in the citation analysis literature with regard to the topic of direct anterior approach (DAA) hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this study is to identify the 50 most frequently cited publications related to this topic.

Methods

The Clarivate Analytics Web of Knowledge database was utilized to search for publications relating to DAA hip arthroplasty. The top 50 most cited articles that met inclusion criteria were recorded and reviewed for various metrics.

Results

The top 50 publications were cited a total of 3521 times, with an average of 86.3 total citations per year between 1980 and 2019. 47 of the 50 articles identified had been published since the year 2000. Cohort designs were the most common study type.

Conclusions

This analysis provides insight into factors that characterize highly cited articles on the specific topic of DAA hip arthroplasty. These factors include higher levels of evidence, recent publication, and origin in the United States. Citations of DAA hip arthroplasty papers appear to be on the rise. The curation and analysis of this set of 50 articles will provide orthopaedic surgery clinicians, researchers, and residency program directors a guide for quickly isolating influential articles on the topic of DAA hip arthroplasty. This may serve as a quick reference for clinical decision-making, foundation for further research, and curriculum on DAA hip arthroplasty.

Does the h-index and self-citation affect external funding of orthopedic surgery research? An analysis of fellowship directors and their subspecialties

Purpose

Determine the impact of self-citation on external funding for orthopedic fellowship directors.

Methods

The San Francisco Match's website identified directors encompassing 8 subspecialties. The Scopus database identified the number of publications, citations, and h-index for each director. H-index was assessed with/without self-citation.

Results

Mean publications, citations, self-citation rate, and h-index for the 446 directors were 71.2, 1816, 3.86%, and 18.3, respectively. Excluding self-citations reduces mean h-index to 18.0; and h-index changed by ≤ 1 integer in 95% of directors.

Conclusions

Self-citation has minimal impact among fellowship directors and should not be adjusted for when considering external funding.

Publication integrity in orthopaedic journals: the self-citation in orthopaedic research (SCOR) threshold

BACKGROUND

The impact factor (IF) is the most commonly used bibliometric method for rating academic journals. However, the practice of journals' self-citation may artificially elevate the IF. Additional bibliometric methods including Eigenfactor scale, SCImago Journal Ranking (SJR), and corrected IF (cIF) have been created. Comparing general-interest and specialized orthopaedic journals, the aims of this study were to assess: (1) the effect of journal´s self-citation on IF; (2) differences in bibliometric analysis; and (3) to determine thresholds for monitoring self-citation practices by defining the self-citation in orthopaedic research (SCOR) Threshold.

METHODS

The journal citation reports and SCImago Journal and Country Rank databases were queried for orthopaedic journals from 1997 to 2017. The following bibliometrics were compared between general-interest and specialized journals: IF, cIF, Eigenfactor, self-citation rates, and SJR. A novel metric, the cIF ratio, was proposed to represent the relationship between a journal's IF and cIF. Thresholds for cIF were based on statistical outliers of cIF ratio within general-interest and specialized journals were calculated. Outliers were defined as data points that were greater than the third quartile by 1.5 times the interquartile range using the last 10 years studied (2007-2017).

RESULTS

Specialized orthopaedic journals had a higher median self-citation rates compared to general-interest journals (11.85% vs. 6.36%, p < 0.001). Overall, cIF ratio declined over study period, and general-interest journals had a lower cIF ratio than specialized journals (8.77% vs. 19.54%, p < 0.001). Overall, general-interest journals had more favourable values for the bibliometric indices studied compared to specialized journals The SCOR threshold for cIF ratio was determined as 25.4% for general-interest journals and 53.3% for specialized journals.

CONCLUSION

Overall, self-citation occurs at a higher rate in specialized versus general-interest orthopaedic journals. We propose the use of a cIF ratio along with the SCOR threshold as a tool to evaluate and monitor journal self-citation practices in orthopaedic research.

Knee surgery: Trends and the 50 most cited articles

Knee Surgery is one of the most commonly performed orthopedic procedures, and a rapidly evolving area of research. A bibliographic analysis was conducted to explore the characteristics of the top 50 most cited articles in knee surgery. The Web of Science Core Collection Database was used to search for Knee AND Surgery, further refined for orthopedic surgery, yielding 1,660 articles. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, the top 50 cited articles were statistically and thematically analyzed. Year of publication ranged from 1982 to 2014. The highest volume of research came from USA, with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery having the highest number of papers in the top 50. The most common theme of research was Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes. Our study elucidates trends and popular areas of research in the field of knee surgery, and provides researchers with an overview of areas to focus, where there is scope for high-impact original research.