Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34139929›Full record

ReviewActa orthopaedica2021

The rise of registry-based research: a bibliometric analysis.

Emilio Romanini, Irene Schettini, Marina Torre, Michele Venosa, Alessio Tarantino, Vittorio Calvisi, Gustavo Zanoli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Acta orthopaedica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Reliability of artificial intelligence in predicting total knee arthroplasty component sizes: a systematic review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Use of the National Trauma Data Bank in orthopaedic trauma research: a bibliometric analysis.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

7 authors.

Emilio RomaniniRomaPro Center for Hip and Knee Arthroplasty, Polo Sanitario San Feliciano, Rome, Italy.
Irene SchettiniDepartment of Management and Law, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome.
Marina TorreScientific Secretariat of the Presidency, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome.
Michele VenosaRomaPro Center for Hip and Knee Arthroplasty, Polo Sanitario San Feliciano, Rome, Italy.
Alessio TarantinoMeSVA Department, University of L'Aquila.
Vittorio CalvisiMeSVA Department, University of L'Aquila.
Gustavo ZanoliGLOBE, Italian Working Group on Evidence Based Orthopaedics, Rome.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose - The main purpose of arthroplasty registries is to collect information on patients, techniques, and devices to monitor and improve the outcome of the specific procedure. This study analyses the role played by registries in the orthopedic research community and describes publication trends, characteristics, and patterns of this field of research.Patients and methods - A descriptive-bibliometric review was conducted. Scopus was the database used for the research. All articles published from 1991 to December 2020 containing keywords related to registries and arthroplasty were considered. In particular, the following dimensions were analyzed in detail: (i) papers/year; (ii) journals; (iii) countries; (iv) research growth rate; (v) collaboration among countries. VOSviewer software was used to perform the bibliometric analysis. Finally, the 50 most cited papers of the last 10 years were briefly analyzed.Results - 3,933 articles were identified. There has been growing interest in the topic since 2010. Acta Orthopaedica ranked first for the number of articles published. The country with the largest number of articles citing registries was the United States, followed by the United Kingdom and Sweden. The relative number of articles per 100,000 inhabitants is 0.60 for Europe and 0.38 for the United States. The literature in this research area has an average yearly growth rate of 28%.Interpretation - The publication rate in the field of arthroplasty registries is constantly growing with a noteworthy impact in the evolution of this research and clinical area. The growth rate is significantly higher than that of arthroplasty literature (28% vs. 10%) and the collaboration among countries is strong and increasing with time.

Indexed as

ArthroplastyBibliometricsRegistriesBiomedical ResearchHumansPublications

Identifiers

PMID34139929
PMCPMC8522812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.