ReviewSpine deformity2024
Patent bibliometrics in spinal deformity: the first bibliometric analysis of spinal deformity's technological literature.
Review in Spine deformity, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Horizon Scanning Methods for Health Care Technology Innovation Identification: Rapid Scoping Review of Patent Research Studies.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBibliometric analyses have gained popularity for studying scientific literature, but their application to evaluate technological literature (patents) remains unexplored. We conducted a bibliometric analysis on the top 100 most-cited patents in scoliosis surgery.
methodsMultiple databases were queried using The Lens to identify the top 100 scoliosis surgery patents, which were selected based on forward patent citations. These patents were then categorized into 8 groups based on technological descriptors and assessed based on various factors including earliest priority date, year issued, and expiration status.
resultsThe top 100 most-cited patents included technology underlying anterolateral tethering and distraction systems (n = 11), posterior tethering and distraction systems (n = 23), posterior segmental bone anchor and rod engagement systems (n = 29), interbody devices (n = 10), biological and electrophysiological agents for scoliosis treatment and/or improved arthrodesis (n = 8), intraoperative arthroplasty devices (n = 5), orthotic devices (n = 12), and implantable devices for non-invasive, postoperative alterations of skeletal alignment (n = 2). Seventy-five patents were expired, 21 are still active, and 4 were listed as inactive. The late 1970s and early 2000s saw increased numbers of patent filings. Demonstrated trends showed no meaningful correlation between patent rank and earliest priority date (linear trendline y = 0.2648x - 477.27; R
conclusionPatent bibliometric analyses in the field of spinal deformity surgery provide a means to assess past advancements, better understand what it takes to make a difference in the field, and to potentially facilitate the development of innovative technologies in the future. The method described is a reliable and reproducible technique for evaluating technological literature in our field. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.