ReviewJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology2026
Orthopaedic publications receive fewer citations than general medicine articles: a scientometric analysis of temporal trends.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 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
backgroundOrthopaedics, as a surgical speciality with a structurally narrower citing audience and lower citation density than general medicine, is systematically disadvantaged in any cross-disciplinary comparison relying on absolute citation counts. Whether this disadvantage is stable or has changed over time has not been previously quantified.
methodsThe 100 most-cited articles indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection were identified for medicine and orthopaedics in 2014 and 2024. Citation data were extracted from a single snapshot taken on 19 January 2026. Total citations and citation velocity, defined as citations per year since publication, were compared between fields and across time points using Mann-Whitney U tests. Ratio-based analyses and distributional characteristics were also assessed.
resultsMedian citation counts were substantially higher in medicine than in orthopaedics in both years, reaching 5055 versus 288 in 2014 and 720.5 versus 34.0 in 2024, corresponding to 17.6- and 21.2-fold differences, respectively. Citation velocity followed the same pattern, with medicine maintaining an approximately 17- to 21-fold advantage at both time points. Within-field temporal analysis showed that citation velocity remained broadly stable in medicine between cohorts, whilst orthopaedics demonstrated reduced early citation accrual in the more recent cohort. Citation distributions were more right-skewed in medicine, with a small number of articles accounting for a disproportionate share of total citations, whereas orthopaedic citations were more evenly distributed across the top 100.
conclusionsOrthopaedics demonstrated substantially lower citation performance than general medicine articles, and this gap appeared to persist over time.
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.