ReviewMusculoskeletal surgery2025
A bibliometric analysis of the 50 most cited articles on acromioclavicular joint reconstruction.
Review in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The aim is to identify the 50 most cited papers and thus the most influential papers pertaining to ACJ reconstruction, and specifically, analysing the level of evidence (LOE), article content, journals occurring, and countries represented within the 50 most cited. A search of the Web of Science database was carried out using the following terms: "Acromioclavicular joint" OR "AC joint" (Topic) AND Reconstruction OR Repair (Topic). The top 50 relevant articles were analysed in relation to citations, citation density, geographic origin of the article, year published, and article type. The articles were cited a total of 6053 times. The most cited article was cited 347 times. The highest citation density was 20.02, with a mean citation density of 7.71 ± 4.13. Seventy per cent of the articles involved clinical research, 74% of which involved level IV evidence. Fifty-two per cent of the articles were published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM). Most authors originated from USA (n = 26 or 52%), followed by Germany (n = 14 or 28%). This study revealed a paucity of articles with higher LOE among the most cited. Eight of the top 10 are either theoretical or biomechanical studies, and one reports an examination technique. Only two of the top 10 reported outcomes following surgical intervention and can thus directly guide treatment. Future research in the area of ACJ reconstruction should focus on generating high-quality interventional studies capable of informing/impacting patient care. Publishing in journals such as AJSM or Arthroscopy may lead to more citations.
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.