Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Chaudhry, Zaira S.
• Fram, Brianna
• Henn, R. Frank
• Sherman, Seth L.
• Hammoud, Sommer

Titel

The 50 Most-Cited Articles in Meniscal Allograft Transplantation Research: A Bibliometric Analysis

Ist Teil von

• Cartilage, 2019-04, Vol.10 (2), p.196-204

Ort / Verlag

Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications

Erscheinungsjahr

2019

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Objective To identify the 50 most-cited articles in meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) research and analyze their characteristics. Design In September 2017, the Scopus database was queried to identify the 50 most-cited articles in MAT research. Variables analyzed include number of citations, publication year, journal, institution, country of origin, article type, study design, and level of evidence. Citation density was calculated for each article. The correlation between citation density and publication year and the correlation between level of evidence and number of citations, citation density, and publication year were computed. Results The 50 most-cited articles were published in 12 journals between 1986 and 2011. The number of citations ranged from 59 to 290 (109.3 ± 48.6). Citation density ranged from 2.7 to 17.6 citations per year (7.0 ± 3.3). There was a positive correlation between citation density and publication year (r = +0.489, P < 0.001). Overall, 56% of the articles were clinical and 44% were basic science. Of the 28 clinical articles, 61% were level IV or V evidence. Level of evidence was not significantly correlated with number of citations (r = −0.059, P = 0.766), citation density (r = +0.030, P = 0.880), or publication year (r = −0.0009, P = 0.996). Conclusion This analysis provides the orthopedic community with a readily accessible list of the classic citations in MAT research and provides insight into the historical development of this procedure. Although there was a moderate positive correlation between citation density and publication year, articles with stronger levels of evidence were not more frequently cited despite the increasing trend toward evidence-based practice.