ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2020
Assessment and Trends in the Methodological Quality of the Top 50 Most Cited Articles in Shoulder Instability.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The 50 Most Cited Original Studies on Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction: A Bibliometric and Study-Quality Analysis.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Review
- Moderate methodological quality in the 50 most cited studies on meniscus root tears: A bibliometric study and methodological quality analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
- The Top-20 Studies About Anterior Shoulder Instability From an Altmetric Analysis Had Higher Levels of Evidence Than Those From a Traditional Bibliometric Analysis.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- The 50 most cited studies on posterior tibial slope in joint preserving knee surgery.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCitation counts have often been used as a surrogate for the scholarly impact of a particular study, but they do not necessarily correlate with higher-quality investigations. In recent decades, much of the literature regarding shoulder instability is focused on surgical techniques to correct bone loss and prevent recurrence. PURPOSE: To determine (1) the top 50 most cited articles in shoulder instability and (2) if there is a correlation between the number of citations and level of evidence or methodological quality. STUDY
designCross-sectional study.
methodsA literature search was performed on both the Scopus and the Web of Science databases to determine the top 50 most cited articles in shoulder instability between 1985 and 2019. The search terms used included "shoulder instability," "humeral defect," and "glenoid bone loss." Methodological scores were calculated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS), Jadad scale, and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) score.
resultsThe mean number of citations and mean citation density were 222.7 ± 123.5 (range, 124-881.5) and 16.0 ± 7.9 (range, 6.9-49.0), respectively. The most common type of study represented was the retrospective case series (evidence level, 4; n = 16; 32%) The overall mean MCMS, Jadad score, and MINORS score were 61.1 ± 10.1, 1.4 ± 0.9, and 16.0 ± 3.0, respectively. There were also no correlations found between mean citations or citation density versus each of the methodological quality scores.
conclusionThe list of top 50 most cited articles in shoulder instability comprised studies with low-level evidence and low methodological quality. Higher-quality study methodology does not appear to be a significant factor in whether studies are frequently cited in the literature.
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.