Factors Associated with Citation Rates in the Orthopedic Literature

• Published in: Canadian Journal of Surgery Vol. 50; no. 2; pp. 119 - 123
• Main Authors: Bhandari, Mohit, MD, Busse, Jason, DC, Devereaux, P.J., MD, Montori, Victor M., MD, Swiontkowski, Marc, MD, Tornetta, Paul, MD, Einhorn, Thomas A., MD, Khera, Vikas, BSc, Schemitsch, Emil H., MD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Canada CMA Impact Inc 01-04-2007; CMA Impact, Inc; Canadian Medical Association
• Subjects: Analysis; Bibliometrics; Citation indexes; Epidemiologic Research Design; Humans; Impact analysis; Medical literature; Medical research; Original; Orthopedics; Periodicals as Topic - statistics & numerical data; Regression Analysis; Research Design; Studies; Surgery; Canada
• ISSN: 0008-428X; 1488-2310
• DOI: 10.1016/S0008-428X(07)50035-4

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).