ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Does research activity reflect the population burden of scoliosis? A bibliometric analysis of etiologic subtypes.
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWhether research output is distributed across scoliosis subtypes in proportion to their burden of disease is unknown. We characterized the scoliosis literature published from 2010 to 2025 by etiologic subtype and compared scholarly output with disease prevalence.
methodsWe searched the Scopus database for articles and reviews on scoliosis published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2025. Records were classified by a predefined keyword algorithm into AIS, congenital, neuromuscular, degenerative/adult, syndromic, and non-adolescent idiopathic categories. The dataset was analyzed in R with the bibliometrix package.
resultsThe search returned 27,190 documents (24,335 articles [89.5%] and 2,855 reviews [10.5%]) from 79,475 authors, with annual output rising from 858 in 2010 to 2,811 in 2025. Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) was the largest named subtype, accounting for 6,818 documents (25.1% of the corpus and 43.8% of all output); 42.8% of documents could not be classified by etiology. Degenerative/adult scoliosis was second (4,176; 15.4%), grew the fastest, and had the highest mean citations per document (23.4), whereas AIS had a comparatively low mean citation rate (18.1). The AIS share of annual output remained between 20.2% and 27.2%, with no sustained directional change. Neuromuscular (11.4%), syndromic (6.0%), and congenital (3.6%) scoliosis remained comparatively small.
conclusionsThe distribution of scoliosis research across etiologic subtypes doesn't mirror disease prevalence. Despite the substantially greater prevalence of degenerative scoliosis in adults, publication volume remained lower than that of AIS throughout the study period. These findings suggest congenital, neuromuscular, and degenerative scoliosis as priorities for future investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42701908What 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.