ArticleCureus2022
Analysis of Eastern Asia's Contributions to Major Orthopaedic Journals in the Past 21 Years.
Article in Cureus, 2022. 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.
- Article
- Rise of Asian research in orthopaedic and sports medicine: a bibliometric analysis from 1996 to 2022.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Article
- Global trend of publications in orthopaedics and sports medicine: 1996 - 2021.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2024Review
- Scientometric analysis of Indian Orthopaedic Research in the last two decades.International 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Over the past two decades, Asia has experienced the rise and integration of Western medicine and digital health in its field of medicine. In this study, we investigated the trends in orthopaedic publications from three Asian countries: China, Japan, and Korea. Methods PubMed was used to measure the number of publications from China, Japan, and Korea in the past 21 years, from 1998 to 2020. The average percentage change in publications during this 21-year time period was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The average annual change in the number of publications from each country was also determined. One-way analysis of variance and two-group t-tests were utilized for statistical analyses with a p-value of <0.05 as the cut-off value for statistical significance. Results From years 1998 to 2020, there was a mean 35.5% ± 70.7% annual increase in the number of total publications from China, in comparison to a 5.1% ± 14.0% annual increase from Japan (p = 0.005) and a 27.3% ± 40.0% annual increase from Korea (p = 0.586). Conclusion For the past two decades, there has been a strong positive trend regarding the total number of orthopaedic publications from China. This finding might be related in part to an increased integration of Western medicine and the use of digital medicine, which followed a similar trend during the time period we analyzed. Korea and Japan also exhibited a positive trend in orthopaedic publications, which may be indicative of an improving educational system and greater general support for research.
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.