Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Apr;50(2):119-23.

Factors associated with citation rates in the orthopedic literature

Mohit Bhandari  1 , Jason Busse, P J Devereaux, Victor M Montori, Marc Swiontkowski, Paul Tornetta Iii, Thomas A Einhorn, Vikas Khera, Emil H Schemitsch
Affiliations
Free PMC article

Factors associated with citation rates in the orthopedic literature

Mohit Bhandari et al. Can J Surg. 2007 Apr.
Free PMC article

Abstract
in English, French

Introduction: Investigators aim to publish their work in top journals in an effort to achieve the greatest possible impact. One measure of impact is the number of times a paper is cited after its publication in a journal. We conducted a review of the highest impact clinical orthopedic journal (Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American volume [J Bone Joint Surg Am]) to determine factors associated with subsequent citations within 3 years of publication.

Methods: We conducted citation counts for all original articles published in J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000 (12 issues). We used regression analysis to identify factors associated with citation counts.

Results: We identified 137 original articles in the J Bone Joint Surg Am. There were 749 subsequent citations within 3 years of publication of these articles. Study design was the only variable associated with subsequent citation rate. Meta-analyses, randomized trials and basic science papers received significantly more citations (mean 15.5, 9.3 and 7.6, respectively) than did observational studies (mean retrospective 5.3, prospective 4.2) and case reports (mean 1.5) (p = 0.01). These study designs were also significantly more likely to be cited in the general medical literature (p = 0.02).

Conclusion: Our results suggest that basic science articles and clinical articles with greater methodological safeguards against bias (randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses) are cited more frequently than are clinical studies with less rigorous study designs (observational studies and case reports).

Introduction: Les chercheurs veulent publier leur travail dans des journaux de premier plan afin d'avoir le plus d'impact possible. Le nombre de citations qui suivent la publication d'une communication dans un journal est un moyen d'en mesurer l'impact. Nous avons procédé à une étude du journal d'orthopédie clinique qui a le plus grand impact (Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American volume [J Bone Joint Surg Am]) afin de déterminer les facteurs associés aux citations qui ont suivi dans les trois années de la publication.

Méthodes: Nous avons dénombré les citations de tous les articles originaux publiés dans J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000 (12 numéros). Nous avons utilisé une analyse de régression pour déterminer les facteurs associés au nombre de citations.

Résultats: Nous avons trouvé 137 articles originaux dans le J Bone Joint Surg Am. Nous avons dénombré 749 citations subséquentes au cours des trois années qui ont suivi la publication de ces articles. La conception de l'étude a été la seule variable associée au taux de citations subséquentes. Les méta-analyses, les essais randomisés et les articles de science fondamentale ont été cités beaucoup plus souvent (en moyenne 15,5, 9,3 et 7,6 fois respectivement) que les études par observation (rétrospectives, moyenne de 5,3 fois; prospectives, moyenne de 4,2 fois) et les rapports de cas (moyenne de 1,5 fois) (p = 0,01). Les concepts de ces études étaient aussi beaucoup plus susceptibles d'être cités dans des publications médicales générales (p = 0,02).

Conclusion: Nos résultats indiquent que les articles de science fondamentale et les articles cliniques comportant la plus importante protection méthodologique contre la partialité (essais contrôlés randomisés et méta-analyses) sont cités plus souvent que les études cliniques dont le concept est moins rigoureux (études par observation et rapports de cas).

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

None
FIG. 1. Mean number of citations by study design. Randomized trials, meta-analyses and basic science papers received significantly more citations than did other study designs. *p < 0.05 when compared with meta-analyses.
None
FIG. 2. Mean number of citations in orthopedic and nonorthopedic journals. Meta-analyses, randomized trials and basic science papers received significantly more citations in nonorthopedic journals than did other study designs (*p < 0.05 when compared with case reports).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Fassoulaki A, Paraskeva A, Papilas K, et al. Self-citations in six anaesthesia journals and their significance in determining the impact factor. Br J Anaesth 2000;84:266-9. - PubMed
    1. Gami AS, Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, et al. Author self-citation in the diabetes literature. CMAJ 2004;170:1925-7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hochberg Y, Tamhane AC. Multiple Comparison Procedures. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1987.
    1. Lankhorst GJ, Franchignoni F. The ‚impact factor'–an explanation and its application to rehabilitation journals. Clin Rehabil 2001;15:115-8. - PubMed
    1. Lundberg G. The “omnipotent” Science Citation Index impact factor. Med J Aust 2003;178:253-4. - PubMed

Publication types