ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2026
Assessment of influential authors and articles in spine surgery research: a narrative review.
Review in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: While other bibliometric analyses have looked at various topics within spine surgery, few have systematically examined highly cited authors and articles within this field as a whole. This study examined the most cited authors and articles within spine surgery research to characterize the intellectual architecture of the field by quantifying publication trends, citation patterns, and authorship networks. Understanding the influence of individual contributors and highly cited publications provides insight into shifts in research priorities and the evolution of evidence within spine surgery. Methods: The Web of Science Core Collection was used to identify reviews and articles in 19 spine surgery-related journals from January 1, 1979, to December 31, 2024, and the 20 most cited authors in first, any, and last author position and the 20 most cited articles from 1979-2024 and 2014-2024 were determined. Key Content and Findings: We found that there were repeat authors in multiple author categories and within the top cited articles, pointing to the presence of a core group of researchers that substantially contributes to research output within this field. Furthermore, comparing the most cited articles of all time to the most cited articles in the last 10 years revealed a shift toward a broader range of topics, higher level of evidence studies and an increase in the number of clinical guidelines. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the utility of analyzing citation trends and fostering high-quality, up-to-date research that includes a diverse set of perspectives to support the advancement of spine surgery scholarship.
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.