ReviewJournal of orthopaedics
The most influential studies concerning revision shoulder arthroplasty research.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bibliometric analysis of theJSES international · 2026Article
- Upper limb arthroplasty - An update.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bibliometric analysis is a unique tool that can be used to study the characteristics and trends of a given topic. This study aimed to report on the most influential studies concerning revision shoulder arthroplasty research. Methods: On July 4th, 2022, the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Knowledge Database was used to identify articles concerning revision shoulder arthroplasty research. The top 50 most cited articles were selected and analyzed. Results: The mean number of citations was 142 (median: 97; range 599-70). Most articles were published in the 2010s (56%), followed by the 2000s (38%), and 1990s (6%). The most common level of evidence (LOE) was LOE II (42%) followed by LOE IV (38%), LOE I and III each had 10%. The greatest number of papers were published in the Conclusion: This review can serve as a useful tool to study the most influential articles concerning revision shoulder arthroplasty research. Most of the articles were classified as clinical outcomes (62%), followed by natural history/epidemiology (12%), and surgical technique (10%). Our findings suggest that high-quality studies (LOE I) are lacking and other areas of research besides clinical outcomes are not as well studied.
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.