ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2025
The top 50 cited publications relating to femoral shaft fractures - A bibliometric analysis of the literature.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Background: Femoral shaft fractures (FSF's) represent common orthopaedic injuries, traditionally resulting from high-energy trauma in younger patients. Effective treatment is crucial for functional recovery, with significant social and economic implications. Despite extensive literature relating to FSF's, the quality of evidence and research trends remain unclear. Methods: A bibliometric analysis was conducted using Web of Science (August 2024) to identify the top 50 most-cited publications related to FSF's. Publications were screened using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, focusing on primary FSF-related research. Data including authorship, publishing institution, level of evidence (LOE), and study focus were analysed using VOSviewer software to explore bibliometric coupling, co-citation relationships and keyword co-occurrences. Results: The 50 most-cited publications collectively received 9796 citations, with the highest cited paper accumulating 508 citations. Treatment outcomes (50 %) and epidemiology (32 %) were the predominant study focuses, while only 4 % addressed surgical techniques. Retrospective cohort and case-control studies constituted 84 % of the included papers, predominantly of level III evidence. The mean patient age was 37.96 years, with a majority being female (65.2 %). Hannover Medical School emerged as the most prolific institution, and the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery published the highest number of articles. Co-occurrence analyses highlighted trends in osteoporosis and bisphosphonate-related FSFs. Conclusions: FSF literature has expanded, focusing primarily on treatment outcomes and epidemiological risk factors. However, a significant proportion of studies are of low evidence, with limited prospective research and an underrepresentation of topics such as FSF complications and paediatric fractures. Future studies should aim to maximise research quality and address emerging themes, including gender-specific analyses and the management of atypical fractures in elderly male populations.
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.