Cargando…
A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Most Influential Studies on Robotic Arthroplasty
BACKGROUND: The use of robotics in arthroplasty surgery has increased substantially in recent years. The purpose of this study was to objectively identify the 100 most influential studies in the robotic arthroplasty literature and to conduct a bibliometric analysis of these studies to describe their...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10277458/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37342364 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2023.101153 |
_version_ | 1785060285368762368 |
---|---|
author | Boddu, Sayi P. Moore, M. Lane Rodgers, Bryeson M. Brinkman, Joseph C. Verhey, Jens T. Bingham, Joshua S. |
author_facet | Boddu, Sayi P. Moore, M. Lane Rodgers, Bryeson M. Brinkman, Joseph C. Verhey, Jens T. Bingham, Joshua S. |
author_sort | Boddu, Sayi P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The use of robotics in arthroplasty surgery has increased substantially in recent years. The purpose of this study was to objectively identify the 100 most influential studies in the robotic arthroplasty literature and to conduct a bibliometric analysis of these studies to describe their key characteristics. METHODS: The Clarivate Analytics Web of Knowledge database was used to gather data and metrics for robotic arthroplasty research using Boolean queries. The search list was sorted in descending order by the number of citations, and articles were included or excluded based on clinical relevance to robotic arthroplasty. RESULTS: The top 100 studies were cited a total of 5770 times from 1997 to 2021, with rapid growth in both citation generation and the number of articles published occurring in the past 5 years. The top 100 robotic arthroplasty articles originated from 12 countries, with the United States being responsible for almost half of the top 100. The most common study types were comparative studies (36) followed by case series (20), and the most common levels of evidence were III (23) and IV (33). CONCLUSIONS: Research on robotic arthroplasty is rapidly growing and originates from a wide variety of countries, academic institutions, and with significant industry influence. This article serves as a reference to direct orthopaedic practitioners to the 100 most influential studies in robotic arthroplasty. We hope that these 100 studies and the analysis we provide aid healthcare professionals in efficiently assessing consensus, trends, and needs within the field. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10277458 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102774582023-06-20 A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Most Influential Studies on Robotic Arthroplasty Boddu, Sayi P. Moore, M. Lane Rodgers, Bryeson M. Brinkman, Joseph C. Verhey, Jens T. Bingham, Joshua S. Arthroplast Today Original Research BACKGROUND: The use of robotics in arthroplasty surgery has increased substantially in recent years. The purpose of this study was to objectively identify the 100 most influential studies in the robotic arthroplasty literature and to conduct a bibliometric analysis of these studies to describe their key characteristics. METHODS: The Clarivate Analytics Web of Knowledge database was used to gather data and metrics for robotic arthroplasty research using Boolean queries. The search list was sorted in descending order by the number of citations, and articles were included or excluded based on clinical relevance to robotic arthroplasty. RESULTS: The top 100 studies were cited a total of 5770 times from 1997 to 2021, with rapid growth in both citation generation and the number of articles published occurring in the past 5 years. The top 100 robotic arthroplasty articles originated from 12 countries, with the United States being responsible for almost half of the top 100. The most common study types were comparative studies (36) followed by case series (20), and the most common levels of evidence were III (23) and IV (33). CONCLUSIONS: Research on robotic arthroplasty is rapidly growing and originates from a wide variety of countries, academic institutions, and with significant industry influence. This article serves as a reference to direct orthopaedic practitioners to the 100 most influential studies in robotic arthroplasty. We hope that these 100 studies and the analysis we provide aid healthcare professionals in efficiently assessing consensus, trends, and needs within the field. Elsevier 2023-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10277458/ /pubmed/37342364 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2023.101153 Text en © 2023 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Boddu, Sayi P. Moore, M. Lane Rodgers, Bryeson M. Brinkman, Joseph C. Verhey, Jens T. Bingham, Joshua S. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Most Influential Studies on Robotic Arthroplasty |
title | A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Most Influential Studies on Robotic Arthroplasty |
title_full | A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Most Influential Studies on Robotic Arthroplasty |
title_fullStr | A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Most Influential Studies on Robotic Arthroplasty |
title_full_unstemmed | A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Most Influential Studies on Robotic Arthroplasty |
title_short | A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Most Influential Studies on Robotic Arthroplasty |
title_sort | bibliometric analysis of the top 100 most influential studies on robotic arthroplasty |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10277458/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37342364 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2023.101153 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT boddusayip abibliometricanalysisofthetop100mostinfluentialstudiesonroboticarthroplasty AT mooremlane abibliometricanalysisofthetop100mostinfluentialstudiesonroboticarthroplasty AT rodgersbryesonm abibliometricanalysisofthetop100mostinfluentialstudiesonroboticarthroplasty AT brinkmanjosephc abibliometricanalysisofthetop100mostinfluentialstudiesonroboticarthroplasty AT verheyjenst abibliometricanalysisofthetop100mostinfluentialstudiesonroboticarthroplasty AT binghamjoshuas abibliometricanalysisofthetop100mostinfluentialstudiesonroboticarthroplasty AT boddusayip bibliometricanalysisofthetop100mostinfluentialstudiesonroboticarthroplasty AT mooremlane bibliometricanalysisofthetop100mostinfluentialstudiesonroboticarthroplasty AT rodgersbryesonm bibliometricanalysisofthetop100mostinfluentialstudiesonroboticarthroplasty AT brinkmanjosephc bibliometricanalysisofthetop100mostinfluentialstudiesonroboticarthroplasty AT verheyjenst bibliometricanalysisofthetop100mostinfluentialstudiesonroboticarthroplasty AT binghamjoshuas bibliometricanalysisofthetop100mostinfluentialstudiesonroboticarthroplasty |