ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2022
A bibliometric analysis of the 50 most influential publications on distal biceps repair.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this bibliometric study was to identify and analyze the most cited publications on acute distal biceps repair.
methodsUsing the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database, we searched for the top 50 most cited publications on acute distal biceps repair and analyzed them based on various metrics.
resultsThe top 50 publications were cited a total of 3171 times and approximately 151 times per year. However, although the literature on the topic is quite extensive, most publications only contain low-level evidence. In fact, 74% of the 50 most cited publications on the topic contain either level IV or V evidence.
conclusionThis study, through bibliometric analysis, demonstrates that the most often cited studies about acute distal biceps tendon repair are low level of evidence designs. This common injury and study design are ripe for larger randomized or prospective cohort studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33792772What 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.