ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2018
Scientometric evaluation of the global research in spine: an update on the pioneering study by Wei et al.
Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of multiple stressors and population decline of frogs.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Review
- Four Decades of Foot and Ankle Research Activity: A Scientometric study of Subspecialty Foot and Ankle Journals.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWei 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.
resultsA 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.
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29196944What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.