The 50 most-cited articles in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Abstract

Background Citation analyses have been used to understand the impact that a group of publications has on its field. As the techniques and indications of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) continue to expand, it is important to identify articles that can orient readers to the history, evolution, and current status of the body of RTSA literature. The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze the 50 most-cited articles related to RTSA. Methods Various Boolean queries were searched on the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science. Information collected included author name, publication year, country of origin, journal name, article type, total number of citations, and level of evidence. Results Top 50 most-cited articles amassed a total of 10,521 citations. The most-cited article was cited a total of 766 times. The most common study designs were case series (28) and cohort studies (9). Authors from the United States (24) contributed the most to included papers, followed by France (19) and Switzerland (8). Discussion The most-cited articles on RTSA are expert opinions, case studies, and cohort studies published by American authors. As RTSA continues to grow over the next decade, studies with higher levels-of-evidence may overtake articles included in this analysis.

The utility of platelet-rich plasma in modern orthopedic practices: a review of the literature

“…Of the included publications, only 3 were published in 2010 or before, with 2 of these papers originating from European authors (Mishra and Pavelko 2006;Randelli et al 2008;Everts et al 2008). The significant increases in the number of publications per year and prominence of American publications that was observed to occur in 2011 is consistent with other bibliographic analyses (Gross et al 2023). This geographical and chronological distribution suggests that the early development of PRP may have been more prominent in Europe while the use of PRP in musculoskeletal medicine within the United States did not catch on until after 2010.…”

“…In this study, a majority (55%) of the publications were randomized controlled trials of Level I evidence, suggesting that the scientific community is relying upon the highest-quality evidence available to guide research and apply PRP in clinical practice. This elevated proportion of studies with high levels of evidence contrasts those found in other orthopedic bibliographic analyses investigating joint arthroplasties, in which many articles in the Top 50 are of Level III and Level IV evidence (Barbera et al 2020;Gross et al 2023). With both surgical and non-surgical applications, PRP, and other orthobiologics for that matter, may be ideal modalities for the conduction of randomized controlled trials that could have resulted in the rapid maturation of this body of literature comparted to largely invasive procedures such as arthroplasty.…”

“…Interestingly, nearly half (44%) of the included studies were published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, one of the most prestigious journals in the field of orthopedic research. Thus, when examining the level of evidence and journal prestige of the articles analyzed in this study, it is quite possible that the large number of citations these articles received is due to their scientific merit and quality of evidence, and perhaps less likely to be affected by selection biases proposed in other bibliographic analyses (Gross et al 2023). Furthermore, authors from the United States contributed most to these publications (20% of all papers), however we observed a smaller percentage of studies from American authors than in other bibliographic analyses (Cash et al 2022;Gross et al 2023;Namdari et al 2012).…”

“…Institutional review board approval was not required given the public availability of the data. The Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database was used to perform this analysis using methods similar to those utilized in previous orthopedic bibliometric analyses (Cash et al 2022;Coulange Zavarro et al 2022;Gross et al 2023;Moore et al 2021;Namdari et al 2012;Barbera et al 2020). On 16 May 2023, several queries using different Boolean combinations were used to determine the broadest possible search that returned the greatest number of publications regarding the use PRP for shoulder and elbow pathologies within the Web of Science database.…”

“…For example, a study discussing the use of PRP for chronic tendinopathy was excluded due to a lack of patients receiving PRP for shoulder and elbow pathologies and its extensive analysis of PRP for Achilles and patellar tendon pathologies (de Jonge et al 2011). Similar to inclusion criteria in previously conducted analyses, articles that presented information on indication for PRP use, procedural descriptions, techniques, as well as outcomes following the application of PRP for shoulder and elbow pathologies were included (Cash et al 2022;Coulange Zavarro et al 2022;Gross et al 2023;Barbera et al 2020;Namdari et al 2012;Moore et al 2021;Cash et al 2022;Gross et al 2023;Coulange Zavarro et al 2022;Moore et al 2021). If there remained uncertainty with a specific publication after the initial screening process, the full article was reviewed by an additional author to determine whether the publication met the predetermined inclusion criteria.…”