SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2021
Systematic review of intervertebral disc repair: a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most-cited articles.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research trends and hotspots of mesenchymal stromal cells in intervertebral disc degeneration: a scientometric analysis.EFORT open reviews · 2023Review
- The Top 100 Most-Cited Publications in Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation: A Bibliometric Analysis.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2022Review
- Bibliometric Analysis of Top 100 Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Orthopaedic Literature.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA bibliometric review of the literature.
objectiveTo identify the most frequently cited articles relating to the repair of intervertebral disc (IVD) and to summarize the key points and findings of these highly cited works, to quantify their impact on the developments of the disc disease treatment. IVD repair is an ever-growing and multi-disciplinary innovating treatment method for disc diseases. There are numerous literatures and related studies about it, promoting the development of the field. A comprehensive review and analysis of the most influential articles can help clarify the most effective strategy of IVD repair, and discover the promising directions for future research.
methodsThe Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge was searched for citations of all literatures relevant to IVD repair. The number of citations, key points, categories, authorships, years, journals, countries, and institutions of publications were analyzed.
resultsThe most highly cited articles in IVD Repair were published over 30 years, between 1991 and 2017. Most works (No. 41) were published between 2005 and 2009. The most-cited article was Sakai's 2003 article which described the possibility of combining MSC and gel to repair IVD. The three most popular categories involved were Orthopedics [44], Clinical Neurology [34], Engineering, and Biomedical [24]. The three most common topics were regenerative medicine and the progenitor cells [33], biomaterials and cellular scaffolds [29], application of growth factors [25]. Author Masuda and the partners have 4 articles in the top 100 list. The Rush University has 12 articles in the top 100 list.
conclusionThis report identifies the top 100 articles in IVD repair and acknowledges those individuals who have contributed the most to the study of the IVD repair and the body of knowledge used to the repair strategy making. It allows insight into the trends of this innovative and interdisciplinary subspecialty of spine surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.