SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2026
Four eras of geriatric femoral neck fracture surgery: a bibliometric analysis of half-century research evolution and emerging frontiers.
Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The core clinical decision in geriatric femoral neck fracture-internal fixation vs. arthroplasty-has remained contested for half a century. Although landmark trials such as FAITH, HEALTH, and WHiTE 5 have profoundly reshaped clinical practice, no bibliometric study has systematically mapped the complete research architecture and knowledge evolution trajectory of this field from 1975 to the present. This study aimed to characterize the global research landscape and knowledge evolution of surgical treatment for geriatric femoral neck fracture using a tri-tool framework integrating CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Bibliometrix with dual-database validation (WoSCC + Scopus). Methods: The WoSCC and Scopus databases were searched in parallel on May 24, 2026, with no date restriction. WoSCC yielded 2,147 documents (1,906 articles and 241 reviews); Scopus yielded 6,019 documents (5,689 articles and 330 reviews). After DOI-based deduplication, approximately 6,592 unique records remained. WoSCC served as the primary analytical dataset, with Scopus providing independent multi-database validation. Bibliometrix was used for descriptive statistics, VOSviewer for keyword co-occurrence and country collaboration networks, and CiteSpace for keyword/reference burst detection, co-citation clustering, and timeline analysis. Results: (1) Annual publications grew from 1 in 1975 to 203 in 2025. (2) The USA and China constitute the first-tier publishing nations (1,029 vs. 1,020 publications), yet China's average citations per article (11.5) lag substantially behind those of the United Kingdom and Sweden. (3) Bhandari M (43 publications) and Frihagen F (33 publications) were the most prolific authors; Conclusions: This field has undergone four paradigm shifts from biomechanical description to perioperative comprehensive management. Although China ranks among the top-tier publishing nations alongside the USA, its research paradigm must transition from technique-oriented toward patient-outcome-oriented and multicenter evidence-based approaches to bridge the persistent citation impact gap.
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.