ReviewJB & JS open access
A 15-Year Bibliometric Analysis of Sports Medicine Studies in
Review in JB & JS open access. 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 Italy's orthopaedics and Sports Medicine research output: Trends, impact, and comparative rankings (1996-2024).Journal of orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Mapping the Research Landscape of Exercise and Breast Cancer: A Bibliometric Analysis From 2020 to 2024.International journal of genomics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Orthopaedic sports medicine is among the most popular subspecialties. Understanding the trends in sports medicine research over time can offer insight into progress and innovation within the field. The purpose of this study was to assess both the quality of the current literature and trends in gender diversity and inclusion by evaluating publishing characteristics of sports medicine studies in The Methods: Sports medicine studies in Results: A total of 784 studies were reviewed, and 513 met inclusion criteria. Clinical therapeutic studies were the most common publication (48%). There was an increase in the publication of clinical prognostic studies (17%-25%, p = 0.037) and a significant increase in the use of PROM measures over time (13%-47%, p < 0.001). The total number of authors increased over the study period (4.8-6.3), but there was no significant increase in female authorship. Only 15% of the 784 studies included a female author, with an average of 0.8 female authors per article (range 0-8) compared with 4.6 males (range 1-14). Conclusion: The significant increase in the use of PROMs in sports medicine studies indicates that the quality of research has improved over the 15-year period. The gender disparity in authorship has remained stagnant. Only 11% of all first authors and 9% of senior authors were female. The number of included international studies improved over time; however, the United States remains the most prolific publisher. Despite these areas of growth, this study suggests that there is room for improvement of authorship gender diversity in orthopaedic sports medicine research. Level of Evidence: Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.