ReviewBrain & spine2026
Bibliometric and trend analysis of the top 100 most-cited articles on anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF).
Review in Brain & spine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a widely utilized spinal procedure supported by an expanding body of literature. However, the structure, influence, and thematic evolution of the most impactful studies remain incompletely characterized. This study aimed to analyze the bibliometric profile of the 100 most-cited ALIF publications. Methods: A bibliometric analysis was performed using the Web of Science Core Collection. The 100 most-cited ALIF-related articles were identified from database inception through 2025. Extracted data included authorship, journals, institutions, countries, and citation metrics. Analyses used the Bibliometrix R package to evaluate productivity, collaboration, and keyword trends. Results: Dataset included 463 authors across 28 journals, with a mean of 5.4 authors per article and international collaboration (9%). The literature demonstrated high impact, with a mean document age of 15.2 years and an average of 125.4 citations per article. Publication output was concentrated in Conclusion: Influential ALIF literature is highly concentrated and shaped by both historically cited studies and emerging high-impact work. The findings highlight a potential divergence between citation prominence and evidence hierarchy, emphasizing the need for critical appraisal and more robust prospective research. This analysis provides a structured framework to understand historical trends, current priorities, and future directions in ALIF research.
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.