ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Publication metrics by rank: assessing musculoskeletal radiology faculty.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2026. 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 50 years of publications in Skeletal Radiology (1976-2025): trends, impact, and global collaboration patterns.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Bibliometric productivity of academic emergency radiology faculty in the United States: Current status.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
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
objectiveAcademic promotion in radiology frequently depends on measurable indicators of scholarly productivity such as publications, citations, and h-index. While several radiologic subspecialties have reported benchmarks for academic output, standardized metrics specific to musculoskeletal (MSK) radiology remain unavailable. This study aims to establish national reference values for publication productivity among U.S. MSK radiologists across academic ranks. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of academic MSK radiology faculty in the United States was performed using Scopus data collected in October 2025. Variables extracted included the number of publications, total citations, and h-index. Descriptive statistics and percentile distributions were calculated across ranks (assistant, associate, and full professor). Comparative analyses by sex and rank were performed using nonparametric tests (Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis).
resultsA total of 679 MSK radiologists from 93 academic institutions were included. Scholarly output increased progressively with academic rank (p < 0.001). Median publication counts were 5 for assistant, 15.5 for associate, and 77 for full professors; median citations rose from 38 to 222 to 1915, respectively, while median h-index values increased from 2 to 7 to 23. No significant sex differences were observed at the assistant or associate professor ranks. However, male full professors had higher citations and h-indices compared to female full professors (p = 0.04).
conclusionThis national analysis provides standardized, rank-specific results for publication productivity in MSK radiology. The percentile-based data offer reference points for self-assessment, departmental evaluation, and promotion considerations, and demonstrate the degree to which scholarly output increases with increasing academic rank.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41720954What 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.