SynthesisProsthetics and orthotics international2025
Analyzing research trends and developments in osseointegration in patients with extremity amputations: Systematic bibliometric analysis and research recommendations.
Synthesis in Prosthetics and orthotics international, 2025. 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.
- Breaking Barriers-The Promise and Challenges of Limb Osseointegration Surgery.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Use of a "Fascial-Sock" Technique to Manage the Stump and Stoma After Insertion of an Osseointegrated Implant in Transfemoral Amputees.JB & JS open accessArticle
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
backgroundBone-anchored protheses (BAPs) by means of osseointegrated implants are increasingly being used in amputees with socket-related issues. Clinical advancements are being published by more and more centers worldwide. Although the number of publications and interest in BAP is growing, a systematic evaluation of scholarly output is lacking.
objectiveTo identify scholarly output, understand research trends and make research recommendations in the clinical field of BAP.
methodsSystematic searches in Medline All, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were completed in February 2023. The results were deduplicated, screened, and assessed for quality by independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria were as follows: clinical studies and BAP in the extremities. Articles were excluded if they were animal or fundamental studies, nonclinical reports, had a study population less than 10 patients, or BAP was performed in areas other than extremities.
resultsOne hundred twelve articles were included and published between 1993 and 2023. An annual growth rate of 10.3% was found and research was published in 62 different journals. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research and The Bone & Joint Journal were the most prolific journals. Hagberg K , Aschoff HH , and Branemark R were major contributors to BAP research. Collaborations are predominantly among high-income countries. Main research trends were on rehabilitation, questionnaires, complication managements, and implant treatment.
conclusionsResearch on BAP shows an increasing global trend, highlighting key research areas and authors. A unified global research agenda, stakeholders' collaborations, and consensus are essential for addressing knowledge gaps and development future direction of BAP.
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.