RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Trending Literature in Spinal Tuberculosis: Bibliographic Analysis of Top 250 Cited Articles
JF International Journal of Spine Surgery
JO Int J Spine Surg
FD International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery
SP 7119
DO 10.14444/7119
A1 Sathish, Muthu
A1 Eswar, Ramakrishnan
YR 2020
UL https://www.ijssurgery.com/content/early/2020/10/21/7119.abstract
AB Background This bibliographic analysis aims to identify the top 250 cited articles on spinal tuberculosis (TB) and report on their impact on the spinal field.Methods All databases included in the Thomson Reuters Web of Science were searched for publications on spinal TB. The most cited articles published between 1950 and 2019, with the main focus on orthopaedic surgery, were identified using a multistep approach, and a total of 250 articles were included and analyzed for title, year of publication, total citations, citations in 2019, citation density, article age, journal, first author, senior author, geographic origin, and level of evidence.Results The number of citations ranged from 31 to 257, with an average of 65.38. Studies were published from 31 different countries and published in 83 different journals. The top 3 countries, India, United States, and China published a total of 57.8% (n = 145) of all articles. Indian and Chinese researchers seem to be the most resourceful, as 17 of the 31 (54.8%) prospective studies were conducted by them. African centers produced only 3.2% (n = 8) of all included articles. Only 3.2% (n = 8) were of Level 1 evidence on the subject. A total of 37.8% (n = 95) were on diagnosis, while 46.6% (n = 117) dealt with surgery, and only 15.1% (n = 38) were about conservative management. Anil K Jain followed by S Rajasekaran were the most published authors on the subject.Conclusions Indian and Chinese researchers dominate evidence in spinal TB. Regions with high disease burden, such as Africa, do not contribute their data to the literature. Though these are the top cited articles in the subject, their level of evidence needs improvement for better impact of their results.