ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2022
Bibliometric Analysis of Top 100 Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Orthopaedic Literature.
Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bibliometric analysis of Italy's orthopaedics and Sports Medicine research output: Trends, impact, and comparative rankings (1996-2024).Journal of orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Bibliometric Analysis of Highly-Cited Papers ofIndian journal of orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Global research trends on physical education practices: a bibliometric analysis and science-mapping study.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- Global research trends on cardiac troponin and physical activity among pediatric populations: a bibliometric analysis and science mapping study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- The Top 100 Most Cited Scientific Papers in the Public, Environmental & Occupational Health Category of Web of Science: A Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: We performed a bibliometric analysis of top 100 systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) in orthopaedic literature and also evaluated articles with maximum average citation per year, which were unable to make up in the present top 100 cited list, but may have a promising future in the world of citations. Methods: This bibliometric study was performed by searching Web of Science database according to a specific search strategy by two independent authors according to eligibility criteria of the studies. Articles with more than 100 citations were eligible for analysis and were evaluated for following parameters: number of citations, journal name, publication date and year, first author, the total number of authors, average citations per year, methodological design of the study, geographic origin and institute associated. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using Kappa coefficient. Results: The number of citations ranged from 1073 to 198 with a total citation count of 30,589. Inter-rater reliability came to out in the good agreement (Kappa value-0.8). There was visible up-gradation of the research from the 2000 year till today. Conclusion: This study recognizes those articles that have contributed significantly to the growth of knowledge and influenced clinical practices in orthopaedics. We believe that this will facilitate and encourage researchers and clinicians in their future research. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-022-00604-9.
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.