ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026
The 50 Most Cited Original Studies on Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction: A Bibliometric and Study-Quality Analysis.
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) reconstruction has been widely studied; however, the methodological quality of its most cited research remains uncertain. Citation-based analyses have emphasized the influence of frequently cited studies. Purpose: To (1) identify the 50 most cited original studies on ACJ reconstruction and assess their methodological quality using established scoring systems, and (2) explore correlations between study quality, citation count, and citation density. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: A Web of Science search (1946-August 2024) identified publications on ACJ reconstruction. The 50 most cited articles were analyzed for bibliographic details, citation metrics, and level of evidence (LOE). Clinical studies were assessed using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS), Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS), and Methodological Quality for Clinical Studies of Radiologic Examinations (MQCSRE). Cadaveric studies were evaluated using the Biomechanics Objective Basic Science Quality Assessment Tool (BOBQAT). Results: The 50 most cited articles garnered 5918 citations, with a mean of 118 ± 62 citations per article. Most articles were published in the Conclusion: Study quality was partially correlated with citation counts among highly cited clinical studies on ACJ reconstruction. The overall methodological quality was moderate, highlighting the need for higher-level evidence. This article serves as a reference for key literature.
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.