Assessment of Characteristics and Methodological Quality of the Top 50 Most Cited Articles on Platelet-Rich Plasma in Musculoskeletal Medicine

Abstract

Background: The wide range of clinical applications and controversial scientific evidence associated with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy in musculoskeletal medicine requires an examination of the most commonly cited studies within this field. Purpose: To identify the 50 most cited articles on PRP, assess their study design, and determine any correlations between the number of citations and level of evidence (LoE) or methodological quality. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: The Web of Science database was queried to identify the top 50 most cited articles on PRP in orthopaedic surgery. Bibliometric characteristics, number of citations, and LoE were recorded. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS), Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS), and Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics (MIBO). The Pearson correlation coefficient and Spearman correlation coefficient ( r S) were used to determine the degree of correlation between the number of citations or citation density and LoE, MCMS, MINORS score, and MIBO score. Student t tests were performed for 2-group comparisons. Results: The top 50 articles were published between 2005 and 2016 in 21 journals. The mean number of citations and citation density were 241 ± 94 (range, 151-625) and 23 ± 8, respectively, and the mean LoE was 2.44 ± 1.67, with 15 studies classified as LoE 1. The mean MCMS, MINORS score, and MIBO score were 66.9 ± 12.6, 16 ± 4.7, and 12.4 ± 3.7, respectively. No correlation was observed between the number of citations or citation density and LoE, MCMS, MINORS score, and MIBO score. A significant difference ( P = .02) was noted in LoE in articles from the United States (3.56 ± 1.7) versus outside the United States (2 ± 1.5). Seven of the 8 in vivo studies were published between 2005 and 2010, whereas 19 of the 25 clinical outcome investigations were published between 2011 and 2016. Studies that were published more recently were found to significantly correlate with number of citations ( r S = –0.38; P = .01), citation density ( r S = 0.36; P = .01), and higher LoE ( r S = 0.47; P = .01). Conclusion: The top 50 most cited articles on PRP consisted of high LoE and fair methodological quality. There was a temporal shift in research from in vivo animal studies toward investigations focused on clinical outcomes.

Characteristics and Methodological Quality of the Top 50 Most Influential Articles on Stroke Rehabilitation: A Bibliometric Analysis

“…Previous studies have suggested an association between the number of citations and level of evidence in several fields 30,31 . However, our findings in the field of stroke rehabilitation support a study that found no significant influence of the level of evidence on number of citations 15,32 . Held et al 33 surveyed orthopedic ballistic trauma articles and included 24 reviews, of which more than two thirds were nonsystematic.…”

“…30,31 However, our findings in the field of stroke rehabilitation support a study that found no significant influence of the level of evidence on number of citations. 15,32 Held et al 33 surveyed orthopedic ballistic trauma articles and included 24 reviews, of which more than two thirds were nonsystematic. Systematic reviews were considered to have a high level of evidence, whereas nonsystematic reviews were considered to have a low level of evidence.…”

Systematic Review of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Low Back Pain

“…High-level evidence studies across various specialties demonstrates favorable results for PRP in orthopedic pathologies, with outcomes superior to the control group in 61% of cases [ 54 ]. The most highly cited articles on PRP show level 1 evidence and positive outcomes, with a growing number of clinical, in vitro, and animal studies [ 55 ].…”

Would you have an injection without knowing its formula? New challenges in platelet-rich plasma therapy

“…Scientific journals play a crucial role in high-quality standard practices on orthobiologics, which show promising results but remain inconsistent within the studies. In fact, an analysis of the top 50 cited articles (mean number of citations 241 ± 94, range 151–625) on orthobiologics revealed a high level of evidence and fair methodological quality [ 6 ]. Nevertheless, no significant improvement in the quality of the studies was noted in recent publications.…”