ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2026
Bibliometric Analysis of Highly-Cited Papers of
Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: This study performed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis comparing Indian and international highly-cited papers (HCPs) in the Methods: The study used a bibliometric design to analyze HCPs published in the Results: The 54 HCPs accumulated 4697 citations, averaging 86.98 per paper. Indian HCPs, averaging 89.61 citations, predominantly comprised original articles and reviews focusing on trauma, joint disorders, and infection. Notably, 74% of Indian HCPs were single-institution studies, with limited international collaboration. In contrast, foreign HCPs, averaging 92.46 citations, exhibited a broader range of topics and more frequent national and international collaborations. Until 2011, Indian publications had a statistically significant lower mean difference in CPP (14.4 ± 2.0) compared to foreign publications (19.4 ± 3.9) with a p-value of 0.042; however, after 2011, this disparity vanished, with both Indian and foreign publications showing an 8.1 mean difference (± 4.2 and ± 4.4 respectively) and a p-value of 0.999. Conclusions: Indian HCPs focus on localized clinical priorities and have lower collaboration rates than their international counterparts. To enhance the global impact and citation potential of Indian orthopaedic research, expanding national and international collaborations and diversifying research topics is crucial. Graphical Abstract: Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-025-01555-7.
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.