A bibliometric analysis of classic publications in web of science category of orthopedics

Analysis of document types and their citations per publication was earlier proposed [17]. A total of 32 classic publications (0.011% of 302,299 documents) with TC₂₀₁₆ ≥ 1000 in WOS of orthopedics were found within two document types indexed in the WOS. Thirty classic publications were found to be document type of article including three of them belonging to both document types of article and proceedings paper. Two were published as document type of review. A review entitled “OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, Part II: OARSI evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines” [18] was the only classic document published in the latest year of 2008 in orthopedics field with TC₂₀₁₆ of 1394. Only articles were used for subsequent analysis because they included complete research ideas and results [19]. As a result, we identified 30 classic articles (0.013% of 227,023 articles) in the category of orthopedics, all of which were written in English. Such low percentage of classic publications can be also found, for example 0.048% and 0.063% of all documents in WOS categories of neurosciences [20] and psychology [12] respectively as well as 0.046% and 0.0049% of all articles in WOS categories of neurosciences [20] and surgery [11] respectively.

In recent years, Ho’s group proposed a relationship between total number of classic articles in a year (TP) and their citations per publication (CPP₂₀₁₆ = TC₂₀₁₆/TP) by the decades in a WOS category as a unique indicator, for example WOS category of surgery [11], psychology [12], and neurosciences [20]. Thirty classic articles in WOS category of orthopedics were published between 1961 and 2007. The maximum value of TC₂₀₁₆ was 3570, the minimum 1010, and the average 1591. Figure 1 shows the distribution of these 30 classic articles over the decades, and their citations per publication (CPP₂₀₁₆). The 30 classic articles received a total of 47,735 citations. Only two classic articles were found in the decade of the 1960s, and no classic article was identified in the most recent decades. The 1980s was the most prolific period in terms of classic articles in orthopedics, which was different from WOS categories of the 1970s in surgery [11], the 1970s in psychology [12], and the 1990s in neurosciences [20]. Besides, the decade of the 1960s had the highest CPP₂₀₁₆ of 2401. The earliest classic article in orthopedics field was “The etiology of chondromalacia patellae” [21] published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-British Volume by Outerbridge from Royal Columbian Hospital in Canada in 1961 with TC₂₀₁₆ of 1331 (ranked 19th) and C₂₀₁₆ of 78 (ranked 22th). The latest classic article was found in 2007 by five authors from Exponent Inc., entitled “Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030” [22] in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume with TC₂₀₁₆ of 2012 (ranked 6th) and C₂₀₁₆ of 411 (ranked 1st).

A total of 76 journals were listed in the WOS category of orthopedics in 2016. The 30 classic articles were published in eight of these journals (11% of 76 journals), and in two other orthopedics journals that were no longer tracked by Web of Science category of orthopedics as of 2016 (Table 1). The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume with IF₂₀₁₆ of 4.840 (rank 2nd of 76 orthopedics journals) published the largest number of classic articles with nine articles (30% of 30 classic articles), followed by Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research with seven. American Journal of Sports Medicine had the highest IF₂₀₁₆ with only one classic article. Connective Tissue Research with IF₂₀₁₆ of 1.832 (ranked 33th) also had only one classic article. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-British Volume (IF₂₀₁₄ = 3.309) and Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica (IF₂₀₀₄ = 1.108) were not in SCI-EXPANDED in 2014 and 2004 respectively.

There were 30 classic articles in WOS category of orthopedics by nine countries. Twenty-seven articles (90% of 30 articles) were completed in a single country from five countries and three (10%) were completed international-collaboratively from six countries. The USA took the first place by total classic articles with 18 (60% of 30 articles), followed by the UK (six articles; 20% of 30 articles), Sweden (three; 10%), Canada (two; 6.7%), and one for each of Australia, Brazil, France, Japan, and Switzerland respectively. The USA also published 16 of 27 single-country articles, two of three internationally collaborative articles, 16 of 30 first author articles, 14 of 28 corresponding articles, and four of five single-author articles.

In total, 18 (60% of 30 articles) articles were completed in a single institution from 17 institutions and 12 (40%) were completed inter-institutional-collaboratively from 31 institutions. Only two institutions such as Case Western Reserve University in USA and Linköping University Hospital in Sweden published two classic articles in WOS category of orthopedics. Other 45 institutions had only one classic article. Linköping University Hospital was also the only one that published two single institution classic articles, first author articles, and corresponding author articles. Twenty-two of the 47 classic institutions were located in the USA followed by nine from the UK, five from Canada, three from Sweden, three from Australia, two from Japan, and one from Switzerland, France, and Brazil respectively.

Among the 91 classic authors of the 20 classic articles in WOS category of orthopedics, only A.I. Caplan from Case Western Reserve University in the USA and J. Lysholm from Linköping University Hospital in Sweden published two classic articles including one first author and one corresponding author articles. A.I. Caplan also published one single author classic article. Other 89 authors published only one classic article (Table 2).

Table 3 shows the 30 classic articles in WOS category of orthopedics with both citation numbers and rankings for TC₂₀₁₆ and C₂₀₁₆. Total citations indicated high impact or visibility of an article in a research field. Due to the citations of publications in WOS Core Collection were updated weekly, the total citation number an article has since its publication to the end of 2016 (TC₂₀₁₆) was utilized [9, 10]. The advantage of TC₂₀₁₆ is that they remain invariable and ensure repeatability compared with the index of citation from WOS Core Collection [12]. The history of a publication’s citations with time has long been studied [51]. The citation history shows characteristics of the influence of an article after its publication. The highly cited articles would not always have high influence or visibility in research society [52]. Five of the top 10 articles (TC₂₀₁₆ > 1800) still have a C₂₀₁₃ ranked in the top 10.

Figure 2 shows the citation history of classic articles that were ranked among the top 10 in both TC₂₀₁₆ and C₂₀₁₆. Although some recently published articles within the past few years had great potential, they did not have a high TC₂₀₁₆. Thus indicator of C₂₀₁₆ would be interesting to show high impact in 2016. A typical example is the article entitled “Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030” [22] which was the most impact classic article in 2016 with C₂₀₁₆ of 411. A sharply increasing trend of citations can be found in this article. Similarly, the article entitled “Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures” had the same impact trend as the article by Beaton et al. [28] in the last decade. Other three articles including Harris et al. [23], Bohannon and Smith [24], and Insall et al. [25] had low citations after their publication and then had an increasing trend in the last 10 years. Classic articles by Fairbank and Pynsent [37], Ware [39], Ganz et al. [41], Sim and Wright [46], and Maher et al. [50] also had sharply increasing citations after publication. Table 4 reveals characteristic of highly cited and the most impact classic articles. The five classic articles were highlighted as follows:

Based on NIS, the study collected a substantially large number of discharge records, and revealed the information of the demand for primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasties in the USA through 2030 for the first time. It helped to quantify the expected number of hip and knee revision arthroplasties in the future. It also laid the necessary foundation for subsequent cost-benefit analysis nationally, to measure the increasing societal impact of revision arthroplasty in the USA.

With the increasing number of multinational and multicultural research projects, there is a growing need to adapt the language of health status measures. The term “cross-cultural adaptation” is used to describe a process that involves both language (translation) and cultural adaptation issues in the process of preparing a questionnaire. This paper firstly presented a guideline for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures, allowing equal efforts to collect data in cross-national studies and to avoid the selection bias.

The Harris Hip Score was initially introduced in this paper as a research tool to assess the clinical results of mold cup arthroplasty for traumatic hip arthritis. It made it possible for surgeons to compare their surgical outcomes in the literature. And it is the most widely used physician-assessed measurement of hip function after total hip arthroplasty.

The modified Ashworth scale is the most common clinical scale used to measure the increase of muscle tone and to monitor the course of disease. It was the first time that the concept of “Modified Ashworth Scale” had been proposed and that “grade 1+” had been added in the definitions. Meanwhile, the authors graded the elbow flexor muscle spasticity of 30 patients with intracranial lesions and proved the reliability of “modified Ashworth scale.”

This paper presented a newly developed rating system for the knee. The knee society clinical rating system has been widely validated. The unified usage of it allows clinicians across the world to objectively compare their operational outcomes.

Figure 3 shows trends of seven classic articles with sharp increasing in citations. These articles might be high impact in WOS category of orthopedics. In addition, classic author J.E. Ware also published the three classic articles about MOS 36-Item short-form [53‐55].

A “sleeping beauty” is a term that describes a research article that remains relatively uncited for a time and then suddenly bursts out. Van Raan [12, 56] defined the three characteristics of “sleeping beauties” to be depth of sleep, length of sleep, and awakening intensity.

Furthermore, long sleep and high impact sleeping beauties were also discussed [12]. Table 5 lists six high impact sleeping beauties in Web of Science category of orthopedics [12]. Figure 4 shows typical citation curves for four of them. The life of the article by Delee and Charnley [36] shown in Fig. 3 had the longest sleeping period with the deep sleep and the less deep sleep of 22 years respectively. The article by Outerbridge [21] was the earliest sleeping beauty while the article by Insall et al. [25] was the latest one in Web of Science category of orthopedics. Articles by Insall et al. [25] and Tegner and Lysholm [34] had higher impact in recent year. Furthermore, the article by Tegner and Lysholm kept in a plateau for 7 years after its sleep for 13 years and then “wake up” again to reach a high position in short period.