Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2021; 82(05): 453-462
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1720993
Original Article

High Rate of Studies with Level 1 and 2 Evidence among the 100 Most Cited Articles in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Juan Martínez-Andrés
1   Institute for Research on Musculoskeletal Disorders, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Valencia Catholic University Saint Vincent Martyr, Valencia, Spain
,
María Ayala-Gascón
2   Doctorate School, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Valencia Catholic University Saint Vincent Martyr, Valencia, Spain
,
Gonzalo Mariscal
1   Institute for Research on Musculoskeletal Disorders, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Valencia Catholic University Saint Vincent Martyr, Valencia, Spain
,
Joaquín Alfonso-Beltrán
1   Institute for Research on Musculoskeletal Disorders, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Valencia Catholic University Saint Vincent Martyr, Valencia, Spain
,
Carlos Barrios
3   Institute for Research on Musculoskeletal Disorders, School of Medicine, Valencia Catholic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background To date, no study has used bibliometric analysis to review the most influential articles in lumbar spinal stenosis. The objective of this study was to identify and analyze the characteristics and the level of evidence of the 100 most cited articles on lumbar spinal stenosis

Methods The Thomson Reuters Web of Science was accessed to find the 100 most cited articles on lumbar spinal stenosis. For each article, we recorded the number and density of citations, authors, country, journals and years, department, level of evidence, type of study, and if it was part of any multicenter studies.

Results Until January 2017, the 100 most cited articles accumulated 11,136 citations (average: 259.05/y), ranging individually between 442 and 50 (average: 111.36). The first reference was published in 1974 in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. Therapeutic studies (n = 40), the 1990s (n = 46), United States as country of origin (n = 51), Harvard University as institution (n = 16), Katz JN as author (n = 10), and Spine as journal (n = 48) have the hegemony. Many were multicenter (n = 42) and using level 2 evidence (n = 49). There is an inverse relationship between citation index and long-standing studies, maintenance of those most cited, and a temporary advance toward better levels of evidence.

Conclusion This bibliometric analysis reveals a good level of evidence in the published clinical series and includes 100 articles useful for the approach of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Keywords

bibliometric analysis - spine research - citation analysis - lumbar spinal stenosis - most cited


Publication History

Received: 12 April 2020

Accepted: 08 June 2020

Article published online:
09 March 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Deyo RA. Treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a balancing act. Spine J 2010; 10 (07) 625-627
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Mirza S, Martin BI. United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine 2005; 30 (12) 1441-1445 , discussion 1446–1447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 North American Spine Society, Evidence-Based Guideline: Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. 2011 . Available at: https://www.spine.org/Portals/0/Documents/ResearchClinicalCare/Guidelines/LumbarStenosis.pdf
  • 4 Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA 2006; 295 (01) 90-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Murray MR, Wang T, Schroeder GD, Hsu WK. The 100 most cited spine articles. Eur Spine J 2012; 21 (10) 2059-2069
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rüegsegger N, Ahmad SS, Benneker LM, Berlemann U, Keel MJB, Hoppe S. The 100 most influential publications in cervical spine research. Spine 2016; 41 (06) 538-548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Steinberger J, Skovrlj B, Caridi JM, Cho SK. The top 100 classic papers in lumbar spine surgery. Spine 2015; 40 (10) 740-747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group, The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence, Oxford Centre for Evidence -Based Medicine. Available at: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653
  • 9 Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN, Brower R, Montgomery DM, Kurz LT. 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine 1997; 22 (24) 2807-2812
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Danielson BI, Willén J, Gaulitz A, Niklason T, Hansson TH. Axial loading of the spine during CT and MR in patients with suspected lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Radiol 1998; 39 (06) 604-611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Paine KWE, Cauchoix J, McIvor G. Lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1974; (99) 30-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Manchikanti L, Cash KA, McManus CD, Damron KS, Pampati V, Falco FJ. Lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in central spinal stenosis: preliminary results of a randomized, double-blind, active control trial. Pain Physician 2012; 15 (01) 51-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Lew RA. et al. Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes. Spine 1997; 22 (10) 1123-1131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Katz JN, Stucki G, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, Grobler LJ, Weinstein JN. Predictors of surgical outcome in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1999; 24 (21) 2229-2233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Katz JN, Harris MB. Clinical practice. Lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2008; 358 (08) 818-825
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Katz JN, Dalgas M, Stucki G. et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Diagnostic value of the history and physical examination. Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38 (09) 1236-1241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Brick GW. et al. Clinical correlates of patient satisfaction after laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1995; 20 (10) 1155-1160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Katz JN, Dalgas M, Stucki G, Lipson SJ. Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 1994; 20 (02) 471-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Noponen-Hietala N, Kyllönen E, Männikkö M. et al. Sequence variations in the collagen IX and XI genes are associated with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Ann Rheum Dis 2003; 62 (12) 1208-1214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Johnsson KE, Rosén I, Udén A. The natural course of lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992; (279) 82-86
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Schräder PK, Grob D, Rahn BA, Cordey J, Dvorak J. Histology of the ligamentum flavum in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 1999; 8 (04) 323-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Goodman DC, Jarvik JG. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA 2010; 303 (13) 1259-1265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Chang LC, Levine SA, Fossel AH, Liang MH. Seven- to 10-year outcome of decompressive surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 1996; 21 (01) 92-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar