ArticleOTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma2026
Use of the National Trauma Data Bank in orthopaedic trauma research: a bibliometric analysis.
Article in OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) is the largest aggregation of trauma patient data in the United States. A bibliometric analysis allows investigators to quantify trends in research, future directions, and knowledge gaps for a given field. This study aimed to conduct a bibliometric analysis of orthopaedic trauma research using the NTDB. Data Sources: The Dimensions database was queried using the following MeSH search terms: orthopaedic trauma, fracture, dislocation, crush, dissociation, compartment syndrome, and the NTDB. Study Selection: Studies that reported nonorthopaedic primary injuries and data not directly derived from the NTDB were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One hundred thirty-seven of 3720 studies were included in the final analysis, comprising 619 authors across 203 institutions, 56 journals, and 2774 cited references between the years 2006 and 2024. The top journals represented were the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery (15, 10.9%), Injury (13, 9.5%), and the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (11, 8.0%). The most studied fractures were the pelvis (39), lower extremity long bone fractures (24), and spine (23). The least common topic of study was the shoulder (1). Common research themes were identified. Conclusions: This study identified the increasing use of the NTDB in orthopaedic trauma research over time. The NTDB was primarily used in large universities and hospital systems, with lower extremity, spine, and pelvis being studied more than upper extremity and soft tissue injuries. An opportunity exists to further examine understudied topics and to repeat previous analyses to identify current clinical outcome trends of high-interest injuries. Level of Evidence: Level III.
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.