Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35754746›Full record

ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2022

Trends in Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Publications.

Brian Sleasman, Caroline Chen, Alex M Caughman, Caroline Hoch, Daniel Scott, Christopher E Gross

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Brian SleasmanNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Caroline ChenMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Alex M CaughmanCarle Illinois College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9730-1528
Caroline HochMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6301-3106
Daniel ScottMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6996-9472
Christopher E GrossMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4740-3902

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Scientific publication and original articles remain the primary method of sharing scientific findings and advancing the knowledge base of that subject. Despite the value of these publications, little research has surveyed what topics are being published. This study aims to identify and characterize the most common topics in current foot and ankle literature. Methods: We reviewed all 1514 published articles in a 5.5-year period (January 2014-June 2019) in 2 foot and ankle-specific journals: Results: The 3 most published topics in foot and ankle literature were hallux valgus (8.3%), total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) (8.3%), and ankle fracture (6.6%). These 3 subjects accounted for 351 articles (23.2%). Other common topics were patient-reported outcomes (5.0%), osteochondritis dissecans (3.9%), syndesmotic injury (3.8%), ankle instability (3.7%), hallux rigidus (3.0%), and anatomy (2.8%). The average LOE for articles on hallux valgus, TAA, and ankle fracture was 3.27 from Conclusion: The 3 most published topics in foot and ankle literature comprise only 23.2% of all articles. This finding is indicative of the wide variety of cases performed by orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeons. High-quality data are still needed in all topics. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Indexed as

ankle fracturehallux valgustotal ankle arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID35754746
PMCPMC9218460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.