Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 1/2016

01-01-2016 | Symposium: 2015 Knee Society Proceedings

Knee Society Award Papers Are Highly Cited Works

Authors: Tommy P. Mroz, Henry D. Clarke, MD, Yu-Hui H. Chang, PhD, Giles R. Scuderi, MD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Since 1993, The Knee Society has presented three annual awards recognizing the best research papers presented at the annual meetings. To date, no quantitative evaluation has determined whether the selection process identifies the most meritorious papers based on subsequent citations. In the absence of validation of this process, it is unclear whether the journal readership should view the award-winning papers as those with potentially greater impact for the specialty.

Questions/purposes

(1) Are award papers cited both more than nonaward papers published in the same Knee Society proceedings issue of CORR® and more than all other knee research papers published in all issues of CORR® during any given year? (2) Does the award selection process identify potentially highly influential knee research?

Methods

Subsequent citations for each award and nonaward paper published in The Knee Society proceedings issue for 2002 to 2008 were determined using the SCOPUS citation index. The citations for all papers on knee surgery published in CORR® during the same years were also determined.

Results

Mean citations for an award paper were statistically greater than for a nonaward paper: 86 (SD 95; median 55; 95% confidence interval [CI] of the mean, 44–128) versus 33 (SD 30; median 24; 95% CI of the mean, 28–37; p < 0.001). Mean number of citations for award papers was also higher than for all other knee research papers published in nonproceedings issues of CORR®: 86 (SD 95; median 55; 95% CI of the mean, 44–128) versus 30 (SD 31; median 20; 95% CI for the mean, 25–35; p < 0.001). Twelve of the 22 (54.6%) award papers were in the top five cited papers from the proceedings issue for the respective year versus 24 of the 190 (12.6%) of the nonaward papers (difference in the percentages is 41.9% and the 95% CI for the risk difference is 20.6%–63.3%; p < 0.001). In 3 of 7 years, an award paper was the most cited knee paper published in CORR®.

Conclusions

The selection process for The Knee Society scientific awards identifies potentially influential papers that are likely to be highly cited in future research articles about the knee.

Clinical Relevance

The selection process for Knee Society Award Papers appears to identify papers that are potentially influential in the field of knee surgery and are likely to be highly cited in future published articles. As such, these award papers deserve special attention from the readership.
Literature
1.
go back to reference B Ahmad SS, Evangelopoulos DS, Abbasian M, Roder C, Kohl S. The hundred most-cited publications in orthopedic knee research. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96:e190.1–13. B Ahmad SS, Evangelopoulos DS, Abbasian M, Roder C, Kohl S. The hundred most-cited publications in orthopedic knee research. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96:e190.1–13.
2.
go back to reference Baldwin KD, Kovatch K, Namdari S, Sankar W, Flynn JM, Dormans JP. The 50 most cited articles in pediatric orthopedic surgery. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2012;21:463–478.PubMedCrossRef Baldwin KD, Kovatch K, Namdari S, Sankar W, Flynn JM, Dormans JP. The 50 most cited articles in pediatric orthopedic surgery. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2012;21:463–478.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Jannot AS, Agoritsas T, Gayet-Ageron A, Perneger T. Citation bias favoring statistically significant studies present in medical research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:296–301.PubMedCrossRef Jannot AS, Agoritsas T, Gayet-Ageron A, Perneger T. Citation bias favoring statistically significant studies present in medical research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:296–301.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Kjaergard LL, Gluud C. Citation bias of hepato-biliary randomized clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:407–410.PubMedCrossRef Kjaergard LL, Gluud C. Citation bias of hepato-biliary randomized clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:407–410.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Lee KP, Schotland M, Bacchetti P, Bero LA. Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. JAMA. 2002;287:2805–2808.PubMedCrossRef Lee KP, Schotland M, Bacchetti P, Bero LA. Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. JAMA. 2002;287:2805–2808.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Moverley R, Rankin KS, McNamara I, Davidson DJ, Reed M, Sprowson AP. Impact factors of orthopaedic journals between 2000 and 2010: trends and comparisons with other surgical specialties. Int Orthop. 2013;37:561–567.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Moverley R, Rankin KS, McNamara I, Davidson DJ, Reed M, Sprowson AP. Impact factors of orthopaedic journals between 2000 and 2010: trends and comparisons with other surgical specialties. Int Orthop. 2013;37:561–567.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Namdari S, Baldwin K, Kovatch K, Huffman GR, Glaser D. Fifty most cited articles in orthopedic shoulder surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21:1796–1802.PubMedCrossRef Namdari S, Baldwin K, Kovatch K, Huffman GR, Glaser D. Fifty most cited articles in orthopedic shoulder surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21:1796–1802.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Okike K, Kocher MS, Torpey JL, Nwachukwu BU, Mehlman CT, Bhandari M. Level of evidence and conflict of interest disclosure associated with higher citation rates in orthopedics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:331–338.PubMedCrossRef Okike K, Kocher MS, Torpey JL, Nwachukwu BU, Mehlman CT, Bhandari M. Level of evidence and conflict of interest disclosure associated with higher citation rates in orthopedics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:331–338.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Pasterkamp G, Rotmans JI, De Kleijn DVP, Borst C. Citation frequency: a biased measure of research impact significantly influenced by the geographical origin of research articles. Scientometrics. 2007;70:153–165.CrossRef Pasterkamp G, Rotmans JI, De Kleijn DVP, Borst C. Citation frequency: a biased measure of research impact significantly influenced by the geographical origin of research articles. Scientometrics. 2007;70:153–165.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Perneger TV. Citation analysis of identical consensus statements revealed journal-related bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:660–664.PubMedCrossRef Perneger TV. Citation analysis of identical consensus statements revealed journal-related bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:660–664.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Pilc A. The use of citation indicators to identify and support high-quality research in Poland. Arch Immunol Ther Exp. 2008;56:381–384.CrossRef Pilc A. The use of citation indicators to identify and support high-quality research in Poland. Arch Immunol Ther Exp. 2008;56:381–384.CrossRef
14.
15.
go back to reference Schoonbaert D, Roelants G. Citation analysis for measuring the value of scientific publications: quality assessment tool or comedy of errors? Trop Med Int Health. 1996;1:739–752.PubMedCrossRef Schoonbaert D, Roelants G. Citation analysis for measuring the value of scientific publications: quality assessment tool or comedy of errors? Trop Med Int Health. 1996;1:739–752.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Seglen PO. Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact. J Am Soc Inform Sci. 1994:45:1–11.CrossRef Seglen PO. Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact. J Am Soc Inform Sci. 1994:45:1–11.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Seglen PO. Citations and journal impact factors: questionable indicators of research quality. Allergy. 1997;52:1050–1056.1. Seglen PO. Citations and journal impact factors: questionable indicators of research quality. Allergy. 1997;52:1050–1056.1.
18.
go back to reference Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ. 1997;314:497.CrossRef Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ. 1997;314:497.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Seglen PO. Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. Acta Orthop Scand. 1998;69:224–229PubMedCrossRef Seglen PO. Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. Acta Orthop Scand. 1998;69:224–229PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference To, P, Atkinson CT, Lee DH, Pappas ND. The most cited articles in hand surgery over the past 20-plus years: a modern-day reading list. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2013;38:983–987.CrossRef To, P, Atkinson CT, Lee DH, Pappas ND. The most cited articles in hand surgery over the past 20-plus years: a modern-day reading list. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2013;38:983–987.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Knee Society Award Papers Are Highly Cited Works
Authors
Tommy P. Mroz
Henry D. Clarke, MD
Yu-Hui H. Chang, PhD
Giles R. Scuderi, MD
Publication date
01-01-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 1/2016
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4330-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 1/2016 Go to the issue