Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34423002›Full record

ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2021

Systematic review of the top 10 ranked spine articles in the last 10 years [2011-2021].

Sihyong J Kim, Ralph J Mobbs

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

2 authors.

Sihyong J KimNeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Sydney, Australia.
Ralph J MobbsNeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpine-related research continues to evolve rapidly and in the paradigm of increasing data, evidence-based practice becomes imperative. Citation-based rankings are thus critical in allowing clinicians to quickly ascertain the importance and value of a study. The purpose of this article is to report on the 10 most cited articles in the field of spine surgery over the last 10 years to provide an insight into the direction of research and clinical endeavors.

methodsGoogle Scholar was searched (1st April 2021) using an algorithm that sorts all cited spine surgery publications based on the number of citations per year. The top 10 most cited articles were identified. Information including journal, publication title, published year, subspecialty, and purpose of the study were compiled.

resultsThe top 10 publications ranged from 471 to 66 citations, with yearly citations ranging from 67 to 14. Eight articles directly related to lumbar fusion, 2 related to 3D Printing in spinal surgery, and one article on robotic surgery. There were 4 retrospective studies, 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT), and 2 systematic reviews. 3 of the papers related to decision making in surgery, 4 on outcomes of surgery, and 3 on innovations in surgery. The journal that appeared most frequently in the top 10 list was the DISCUSSION: Novel surgical approaches or management strategies are almost always a manifestation of advancements in clinical and basic science research. Algorithm-based identification of highly cited articles provides an effective and prompt avenue for evidence-based medicine. Our ranking found a predominance of publications related to lumbar spinal fusion. Several articles in the top 10 provide an in-depth discussion on novel surgical techniques and technologies that define the current epoch of innovations in spine surgery.

Indexed as

citation analysiscitation rankinglumbar fusionSpine surgery

Identifiers

PMID34423002
PMCPMC8339864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.