RESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Bibliometric literature review. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to recognize and analyze the most frequently cited manuscripts published in the journal Spine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although the journal Spine is considered a premiere location for distributing influential spine research, no previous study has evaluated which of their publications have had the most impact. Knowledge and appreciation of the most influential Spine publications can guide and inspire future research endeavors. METHODS: Using the Scopus database, the 100 most cited articles published in Spine were accessed. The frequency of citations, year of publication, country of origin, level-of-evidence (LOE), article type, and contributing authors/institutions were recorded. The 10 most cited articles (per year) from the past decade were also determined. RESULTS: "Guidelines For The Process Of Cross-Cultural Adaptation Of Self-Report Measures" by Beaton DE was the most cited article with 2960 citations. 2000 to 2009 (nâ=â46) was the most productive period. A LOE of III (nâ=â35) followed by II (nâ=â34) were the most common. Deyo RA (nâ=â8), Bombardier C (nâ=â6), and Waddell G (nâ=â6) produced the most articles. University of Washington (nâ=â8) and University of Toronto (nâ=â8) ranked first for institutional output. Clinical Outcome (nâ=â28) was the most recurring article topic. The United States (nâ=â51) ranked first for country of origin. CONCLUSION: Using citation analysis as an objective proxy for influence, certain publications can be distinguished from others due to their lasting impact and recognition from peers. Of the top cited Spine publications, many pertained to clinical outcomes (28%) and had a LOE of I, II, or III (60%). Although older publications have had longer time to accrue citations, those in the most recent decade comprise this list almost 2:1. Knowledge of these "classic" publications allows for a better overall understanding of the diagnosis, management, and future direction of spine health care.Level of Evidence: 3.
Asunto(s)
Ortopedia , Publicaciones/estadística & datos numéricos , Columna Vertebral/cirugía , Bibliometría , Humanos , Ortopedia/organización & administración , Ortopedia/tendenciasRESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: To illustrate demographic trends among spine fellowship leaders (FLs). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: No previous study in the orthopedic literature has analyzed the demographic characteristics or past surgical training of FL in an orthopedic sub-specialty. We attempt to illustrate demographic trends among spine fellowship leadership including fellowship directors (FDs) and co-fellowship directors (co-FDs). We also highlight the institutions that have trained these leaders at various levels. METHODS: Our search for FDs was constructed from the 2018 to 2019 North American Spine Surgery (NASS) Fellowship Directory. Datapoints gathered included: age, sex, residency/fellowship training location, time since training completion until FD appointment, length in FD role, and personal research H-index. RESULTS: We identified 103 FLs consisting of 67 FDs, 19 co-FDs, and another 16 individuals with a synonymous leadership title. 96.1% (99) of the leadership consisted of males while 3.9% (4) were female. The mean age was 52.9 years old and the mean h-index of the FLs was 23.8. FLs were trained in orthopedic surgery (nâ=â89), neurosurgery (nâ=â13), or combined orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery training (nâ=â1). The top fellowships programs producing future FLs were: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland (nâ=â10), Washington University, St. Louis (nâ=â9), and Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia (nâ=â7). CONCLUSION: Spine surgery fellowship directors are more likely to have graduated from certain residency and fellowship programs. This finding could be a result of the training provided by these centers or the institution's predilection to select applicants that are more likely to later seek academic leadership roles post-training. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.