ArticleDental press journal of orthodontics2024
A bibliometric analysis of the 100 top-cited systematic review and meta-analysis in Orthodontics.
Article in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Research Hotspots and Emerging Trends of Orthodontic-Related Discomfort and Pain: A Bibliometric Review.Pain research & management · 2025Pooled it
- Authorial Influence in Orthodontic Scholarship: A Comparative Analysis of Authors Impact Across Three Leading Orthodontic Journals.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2026Article
- A Bibliometric Assessment of the Turkish Journal of Orthodontics after WoS Indexing.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Scientific overview of mandibular advancement devices: a bibliometric and altmetric analysis.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2026Review
- Bibliometric Analysis of the 100 Most Cited Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Oral Pathology.Cureus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis bibliometric study aimed to analyze the citation metrics, journal and author characteristics, and subject domains of the 100 top-cited Systematic Reviews (SR) and Meta-Analysis (MA) in orthodontics. MATERIAL AND
methodsAn electronic database search was conducted for SR and MA in the Web of Science on 16th July 2023, without language and time restrictions. Of the 802 hits returned, the 100 top-cited orthodontic articles were shortlisted. They were analyzed for citation metrics, journal characteristics (journal, year of publication, impact factor-IF), author and affiliation characteristics (number, primary and corresponding author's affiliation, and country), study domain, and keywords.
resultsThese articles were published from 1996 to 2021 in 20 journals, with an impact factor of 1.9 to 10.5, by 351 researchers affiliated with 104 universities. Their citations ranged from 45 to 344, and 34 poised to be classified as classic (≥ 100 citations). The maximum number of articles was published in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (n=38), the European Journal of Orthodontics (n=18), and the Angle Orthodontist (n=8). The authors for individual papers ranged from 1 to 10, with 5 being the most common (n=58). Europe had the highest contribution regarding the number of corresponding authors, institutions, and citations. Bone anchorage and orthodontic tooth movement/Biomechanics were the most frequently researched domains (n=11 each). The most common keyword used was Orthodontics (n=19), followed by Systematic Review (n=16) and Meta-analysis (n=9).
conclusionIn general, the top cited SR and MA were published in high-impact orthodontic journals, were multi-authored, and reflected the collaborative work from different universities.
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.