Assessment and Trends in the Methodological Quality of the Top 50 Most Cited Articles in Shoulder Instability

Abstract

Background: Citation counts have often been used as a surrogate for the scholarly impact of a particular study, but they do not necessarily correlate with higher-quality investigations. In recent decades, much of the literature regarding shoulder instability is focused on surgical techniques to correct bone loss and prevent recurrence. Purpose: To determine (1) the top 50 most cited articles in shoulder instability and (2) if there is a correlation between the number of citations and level of evidence or methodological quality. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: A literature search was performed on both the Scopus and the Web of Science databases to determine the top 50 most cited articles in shoulder instability between 1985 and 2019. The search terms used included “shoulder instability,” “humeral defect,” and “glenoid bone loss.” Methodological scores were calculated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS), Jadad scale, and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) score. Results: The mean number of citations and mean citation density were 222.7 ± 123.5 (range, 124-881.5) and 16.0 ± 7.9 (range, 6.9-49.0), respectively. The most common type of study represented was the retrospective case series (evidence level, 4; n = 16; 32%) The overall mean MCMS, Jadad score, and MINORS score were 61.1 ± 10.1, 1.4 ± 0.9, and 16.0 ± 3.0, respectively. There were also no correlations found between mean citations or citation density versus each of the methodological quality scores. Conclusion: The list of top 50 most cited articles in shoulder instability comprised studies with low-level evidence and low methodological quality. Higher-quality study methodology does not appear to be a significant factor in whether studies are frequently cited in the literature.

The 50 most cited studies on posterior tibial slope in joint preserving knee surgery

“…The 50 articles were published out of twelve different countries. The dominant proportion of US studies ( n = 23) is consistent with similar bibliometric studies and is not unique to orthopedic specialties [ 1 , 3 , 19 , 35 , 36 ]. This could result in authors outside the US being read and cited less than US authors.…”