Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33866438›Full record

ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2021

Worldwide research tendency and hotspots on hip fracture: a 20-year bibliometric analysis.

Haiyang Wu, Yuqiao Li, Linjian Tong, Yulin Wang, Zhiming Sun

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 109 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
109citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

109 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trends and hotspots in epiphyseal injury studies over 2 decades: A bibliometric analysis.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2026
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

49 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Haiyang Wu *Clinical College of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Neurorehabilitation, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Yuqiao Li *Clinical College of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Neurorehabilitation, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Linjian TongClinical College of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Neurorehabilitation, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Yulin WangClinical College of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Neurorehabilitation, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Zhiming SunClinical College of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Neurorehabilitation, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, China. szhm618@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We analyzed the overall knowledge structure, development trends, and research hotspots of 7684 publications related to hip fracture through the bibliometric method. Our results indicate this area has received more and more attention from researchers. Prevention of complications will be the focus of future studies.

introductionHip fracture is an international public health problem, with high morbidity, mortality, and associated health care costs. Research on hip fracture has been developed rapidly in recent years, but no bibliometric studies have been performed. We aimed to identify the publication changes in scientific output relating to hip fracture over the past two decades.

methodsThe scientific output relating to hip fracture from 2000 to 2019 was identified and selected from the Web of Science Core Collection. Excel 2019 was used to summarize the quantitative indicators including publication number, citations, H-index, journal's impact factors, and journal citation reports. VOS viewer and CiteSpace software tools were used for co-authorship, citation, co-citation, and co-occurrence analyses between countries, institutions, journals, authors, references, and keywords. Data were analyzed on November 13, 2020.

resultsA total of 7684 publications were extracted. The USA was the leading contributor in this field with the largest publications (1876, 24.41%), the most citations (75,423 times), and the highest H-index (124). The number of publications in the Western European region is 1.82 times higher than that of North America region, and 3.59 times that of Eastern Asia region. The most productive institutions on hip fracture were University of Maryland (160). Injury (506) had the highest number of publications, while Osteoporosis International (20,483 times) was the most co-cited journal. Magaziner J and Parker MJ were the key researchers. The keywords were stratified into five clusters: cluster 1 ("operative approaches study"), cluster 2 ("rehabilitation study"), cluster 3 ("osteoporosis study"), cluster 4 ("outcomes and complications study"), and cluster 5 ("epidemiology study"). For hotspots, "tranexamic acid" showed a relatively latest average appearing years of 2017.52, followed by "30-day-mortality," "readmission," and "length of stay."

conclusionsThere will be an increasing number of publications on the hip fracture research based on the current global trends, and the USA stays ahead in this field. In terms of region, Western Europe had the greater impact than North America. It is recommended to pay attention to the promising hotspots, such as tranexamic acid, 30-day-mortality, readmission, and length of stay.

Indexed as

Hip FracturesOsteoporosisAsia, EasternBibliometricsEuropeHumansBibliometric analysisCiteSpaceHip fractureHotspotsVOS viewer

Identifiers

PMID33866438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.