ArticleCureus2022
Evaluating the Academic Influence of Orthopedic Surgeons in Spinal Literature Through Relative Citation Ratio.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe innovative iCite tool applies the relative citation ratio (RCR) to gauge the time and field-adjusted scientific influence of a publication. This study examines scholarly effects on spine surgery to distinguish the impact made by orthopedic surgeons, neurosurgeons, and several other specialists. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom 2013 to 2017, 100 of the highest RCR-rated articles were gathered for each of the following terms: cervical disc herniation (CDH), lumbar disc herniation (LDH), lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), neurogenic claudication (NC), radiculopathy (RAD), and sciatica (SC). The first, second, and last authors were queried for background and academic qualifications and placed into the following specialty categories: orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, pain management, medicine, and others. To provide an alternative degree of influence, the Scopus database was employed to classify the h-index associated with each author.
resultsAcross the six search terms, there were 526 orthopedic surgeons among 1,730 authors (30.4%), with the highest representation in LSS (118/290, 40.7%), and the lowest in SC (45/286, 15.7%). Orthopedics was the most influential specialty across all six research terms by median RCR (p = 0.012). Compared to their neurosurgical counterparts, orthopedic authors had a greater influence in CDH (3.93 vs. 2.63, p = 0.0492), LDH (5.10 vs. 4.99, p = 1.0000), NC (2.16 vs. 1.40, p = 0.2370), and SC (3.35 vs. 3.04, p = 0.5285), but had a lower influence in LSS (5.13 vs. 5.32, p = 0.7736) and RAD (5.03 vs. 6.05, p = 0.3938).
conclusionOrthopedic surgeons lead other specialties when determining scholarly influence through RCR across six of the pre-designated research domains within spine surgery. For orthopedics, a modest influence in LSS and RAD may suggest potential areas of future focus. The use of bibliometrics to analyze available literature enables us to identify other specialties that have contributed to our field and promote interdisciplinary collaboration.
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.