Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Journal of Medical Research 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Spinal Surgery | Research

Using Kano diagrams to display the most cited article types, affiliated countries, authors and MeSH terms on spinal surgery in recent 12 years

Authors: Po-Hsin Chou, Yu-Tsen Yeh, Wei-Chih Kan, Tsair-Wei Chien, Shu-Chun Kuo

Published in: European Journal of Medical Research | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Citation analysis has been increasingly applied to assess the quantity and quality of scientific research in various fields worldwide. However, these analyses on spinal surgery do not provide visualization of results. This study aims (1) to evaluate the worldwide research citations and publications on spinal surgery and (2) to provide visual representations using Kano diagrams onto the research analysis for spinal surgeons and researchers.

Methods

Article abstracts published between 2007 and 2018 were downloaded from PubMed Central (PMC) in 5 journals, including Spine, European Spine Journal, The Spine Journal, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, and Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques. The article types, affiliated countries, authors, and Medical subject headings (MeSH terms) were analyzed by the number of article citations using x-index. Choropleth maps and Kano diagrams were applied to present these results. The trends of MeSH terms over the years were plotted and analyzed.

Results

A total of 18,808 publications were extracted from the PMC database, and 17,245 were affiliated to countries/areas. The 12-year impact factor for the five spine journals is 5.758. We observed that (1) the largest number of articles on spinal surgery was from North America (6417, 37.21%). Spine earns the highest x-index (= 82.96). Comparative Study has the highest x-index (= 66.74) among all article types. (2) The United States performed exceptionally in x-indexes (= 56.86 and 44.5) on both analyses done on the total 18,808 and the top 100 most cited articles, respectively. The most influential author whose x-index reaches 15.11 was Simon Dagenais from the US. (3) The most cited MeSH term with an x-index of 23.05 was surgery based on the top 100 most cited articles. The most cited article (PMID = 18164449) was written by Dagenais and his colleagues in 2008. The most productive author was Michael G. Fehlings, whose x-index and the author's impact factor are 13.57(= √(13.16*14)) and 9.86(= 331.57/33.64), respectively.

Conclusions

There was a rapidly increasing scientific productivity in the field of spinal surgery in the past 12 years. The US has extraordinary contributions to the publications. Furthermore, China and Japan have increasing numbers of publications on spinal surgery. This study with Kano diagrams provides an insight into the research for spinal surgeons and researchers.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Fan G, Han R, Zhang H, He S, Chen Z. Worldwide research productivity in the field of minimally invasive spine surgery: a 20-year survey of publication activities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(22):1717–22.CrossRef Fan G, Han R, Zhang H, He S, Chen Z. Worldwide research productivity in the field of minimally invasive spine surgery: a 20-year survey of publication activities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(22):1717–22.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Wei M, Wang W, Zhuang Y. Worldwide research productivity in the field of spine surgery: a 10-year bibliometric analysis. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(4):976–82.CrossRef Wei M, Wang W, Zhuang Y. Worldwide research productivity in the field of spine surgery: a 10-year bibliometric analysis. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(4):976–82.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Virk SS, Yu E. The top 50 articles on minimally invasive spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(7):513–9.CrossRef Virk SS, Yu E. The top 50 articles on minimally invasive spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(7):513–9.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Lippi G, Mattiuzzi C. Scientist impact factor (SIF): a new metric for improving scientists’ evaluation? Ann Transl Med. 2017;5(15):303.CrossRef Lippi G, Mattiuzzi C. Scientist impact factor (SIF): a new metric for improving scientists’ evaluation? Ann Transl Med. 2017;5(15):303.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Pan RK, Fortunato S. Author impact factor: tracking the dynamics of individual scientific impact. Sci Rep. 2014;4:4880.CrossRef Pan RK, Fortunato S. Author impact factor: tracking the dynamics of individual scientific impact. Sci Rep. 2014;4:4880.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Chien TW, Wang HY, Kan WC, Su SB. Whether article types of a scholarly journal are different in cited metrics using cluster analysis of MeSH terms to display: a bibliometric analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(43):e17631.CrossRef Chien TW, Wang HY, Kan WC, Su SB. Whether article types of a scholarly journal are different in cited metrics using cluster analysis of MeSH terms to display: a bibliometric analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(43):e17631.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:16569–72.CrossRef Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:16569–72.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Egghe L. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics. 2006;69:131–52.CrossRef Egghe L. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics. 2006;69:131–52.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Fenner T, Harris M, Levene M, Bar-Ilan J. A novel bibliometric index with a simple geometric interpretation. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(7):e0200098.CrossRef Fenner T, Harris M, Levene M, Bar-Ilan J. A novel bibliometric index with a simple geometric interpretation. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(7):e0200098.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Huang MH, Chi PS. A comparative analysis of the application of H-index, G-index, and A-index in institutional-level research evaluation. J Libr Inf Stud. 2010;8(2):1–10. Huang MH, Chi PS. A comparative analysis of the application of H-index, G-index, and A-index in institutional-level research evaluation. J Libr Inf Stud. 2010;8(2):1–10.
11.
go back to reference Kano N, Seraku N, Takahashi F, Tsuji S. Attractive quality and must-be quality. J Jpn Soc Quality Control. 1984;41:39–48. Kano N, Seraku N, Takahashi F, Tsuji S. Attractive quality and must-be quality. J Jpn Soc Quality Control. 1984;41:39–48.
12.
go back to reference Zhang CT. The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(5):e5429.CrossRef Zhang CT. The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(5):e5429.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Zhang CT. The h’-index, effectively improving the h-index based on the citation distribution. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e59912.CrossRef Zhang CT. The h’-index, effectively improving the h-index based on the citation distribution. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e59912.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM. Worldwide research productivity in the field of electronic cigarette: a bibliometric analysis. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:667.CrossRef Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM. Worldwide research productivity in the field of electronic cigarette: a bibliometric analysis. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:667.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Michalopoulos A, Falagas ME. A bibliometric analysis of global research production in respiratory medicine. Chest. 2005;128(6):3993–8.CrossRef Michalopoulos A, Falagas ME. A bibliometric analysis of global research production in respiratory medicine. Chest. 2005;128(6):3993–8.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Hauptman JS, Chow DS, Martin NA, Itagaki MW. Research productivity in neurosurgery: trends in globalization, scientific focus, and funding. J Neurosurg. 2011;115(6):1262–72.CrossRef Hauptman JS, Chow DS, Martin NA, Itagaki MW. Research productivity in neurosurgery: trends in globalization, scientific focus, and funding. J Neurosurg. 2011;115(6):1262–72.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Cheng T, Zhang G. Worldwide research productivity in the field of rheumatology from 1996 to 2010: a bibliometric analysis. Rheumatol (Oxford). 2013;52(9):1630–4.CrossRef Cheng T, Zhang G. Worldwide research productivity in the field of rheumatology from 1996 to 2010: a bibliometric analysis. Rheumatol (Oxford). 2013;52(9):1630–4.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM. Worldwide research productivity of paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning: a bibliometric analysis (2003–2012). Hum Exp Toxicol. 2014;34(1):12–23.CrossRef Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW, Sweileh WM. Worldwide research productivity of paracetamol (acetaminophen) poisoning: a bibliometric analysis (2003–2012). Hum Exp Toxicol. 2014;34(1):12–23.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Thornton K, Lee DJ, Yuan JC, Knoernschild KL, Campbell SD, Sukotjo C. An analysis of prosthodontic research productivity: geographic, economic, and collaborative perspective. J Prosthodont. 2012;21(1):73–8.CrossRef Thornton K, Lee DJ, Yuan JC, Knoernschild KL, Campbell SD, Sukotjo C. An analysis of prosthodontic research productivity: geographic, economic, and collaborative perspective. J Prosthodont. 2012;21(1):73–8.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Chen HL, Cai DY, Shen WQ, Liu P. Bibliometric analysis of pressure ulcer research: 1990–2009. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2010;37(6):627–32.CrossRef Chen HL, Cai DY, Shen WQ, Liu P. Bibliometric analysis of pressure ulcer research: 1990–2009. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2010;37(6):627–32.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Jamshidi AR, Gharibdoost F, Nadji A, Nikou M, Habibi G, Mardani A, Ghaemi M. Presentation of psoriatic arthritis in the literature: a twenty-year bibliometric evaluation. Rheumatol Int. 2013;33(2):361–7.CrossRef Jamshidi AR, Gharibdoost F, Nadji A, Nikou M, Habibi G, Mardani A, Ghaemi M. Presentation of psoriatic arthritis in the literature: a twenty-year bibliometric evaluation. Rheumatol Int. 2013;33(2):361–7.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Hui Z, Yi Z, Peng J. Bibliometric analysis of the orthopedic literature. Orthopedics. 2013;36(10):e1225–32.CrossRef Hui Z, Yi Z, Peng J. Bibliometric analysis of the orthopedic literature. Orthopedics. 2013;36(10):e1225–32.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Fernandes CH, Meirelles LM, Raduan Neto J, dos Santos JB, Faloppa F, Albertoni WM. Characteristics of global publications about wrist arthroscopy: a bibliometric analysis. Hand Surg. 2012;17(3):311–5.CrossRef Fernandes CH, Meirelles LM, Raduan Neto J, dos Santos JB, Faloppa F, Albertoni WM. Characteristics of global publications about wrist arthroscopy: a bibliometric analysis. Hand Surg. 2012;17(3):311–5.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Mao Z, Wang G, Mei X, Chen S, Liu X, Zeng X, Long A, Zhang L, Tang P. Systematic reviews on reports of hip fractures in Web of Science: a bibliometric analysis of publication activity. Chin Med J (Engl). 2014;127(13):2518–22. Mao Z, Wang G, Mei X, Chen S, Liu X, Zeng X, Long A, Zhang L, Tang P. Systematic reviews on reports of hip fractures in Web of Science: a bibliometric analysis of publication activity. Chin Med J (Engl). 2014;127(13):2518–22.
25.
go back to reference Chien TW, Chow JC, Chang Y, Chou W. Applying Gini coefficient to evaluate the author research domains associated with the ordering of author names: a bibliometric study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(39):e12418.CrossRef Chien TW, Chow JC, Chang Y, Chou W. Applying Gini coefficient to evaluate the author research domains associated with the ordering of author names: a bibliometric study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(39):e12418.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Sekercioglu CH. Quantifying coauthor contributions. Science. 2008;322(5900):371.CrossRef Sekercioglu CH. Quantifying coauthor contributions. Science. 2008;322(5900):371.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Vavryčuk V. Fair ranking of researchers and research teams. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(4):e0195509.CrossRef Vavryčuk V. Fair ranking of researchers and research teams. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(4):e0195509.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Balogh SG, Zagyva D, Pollner P, Palla G. Time evolution of the hierarchical networks between PubMed MeSH terms. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(8):e0220648.CrossRef Balogh SG, Zagyva D, Pollner P, Palla G. Time evolution of the hierarchical networks between PubMed MeSH terms. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(8):e0220648.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Chien TW, Wang HY, Hsu CF, Kuo SC. Choropleth map legend design for visualizing the most influential areas in article citation disparities: a bibliometric study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(41):e17527.CrossRef Chien TW, Wang HY, Hsu CF, Kuo SC. Choropleth map legend design for visualizing the most influential areas in article citation disparities: a bibliometric study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(41):e17527.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Shen L, Xiong B, Li W, Lan F, Evans R, Zhang W. Visualizing collaboration characteristics and topic burst on international mobile health research: bibliometric analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018;6(6):e135.CrossRef Shen L, Xiong B, Li W, Lan F, Evans R, Zhang W. Visualizing collaboration characteristics and topic burst on international mobile health research: bibliometric analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018;6(6):e135.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Chien TW, Chang Y, Wang HY. Understanding the productive author who published papers in medicine using National Health Insurance Database: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(8):e9967.CrossRef Chien TW, Chang Y, Wang HY. Understanding the productive author who published papers in medicine using National Health Insurance Database: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(8):e9967.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Batagelj V, Mrvar A. Pajek—analysis, and visualization of large networks. In: Jünger M, Mutzel P, editors. Graph drawing software. Berlin: Springer; 2003. p. 77–103. Batagelj V, Mrvar A. Pajek—analysis, and visualization of large networks. In: Jünger M, Mutzel P, editors. Graph drawing software. Berlin: Springer; 2003. p. 77–103.
33.
go back to reference Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S. A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J. 2008;8(1):8–20.CrossRef Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S. A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J. 2008;8(1):8–20.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Leydesdorff L, Wagner C, Park HW, Adams J. International collaboration in science: the global map and the network. CoRR abs/1301.0801 (2013) Leydesdorff L, Wagner C, Park HW, Adams J. International collaboration in science: the global map and the network. CoRR abs/1301.0801 (2013)
35.
go back to reference Glänzel W, Schlemmer B. National research profiles in a changing Europe (1983–2003): an exploratory study of sectoral characteristics in the Triple Helix. Scientometrics. 2007;70(2):267–75.CrossRef Glänzel W, Schlemmer B. National research profiles in a changing Europe (1983–2003): an exploratory study of sectoral characteristics in the Triple Helix. Scientometrics. 2007;70(2):267–75.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Ding F, Jia Z, Liu M. National representation in the spine literature: a bibliometric analysis of highly cited spine journals. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(3):850–5.CrossRef Ding F, Jia Z, Liu M. National representation in the spine literature: a bibliometric analysis of highly cited spine journals. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(3):850–5.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Chen YC, Kuo CH, Cheng CM, Wu JC. Recent advances in the management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: bibliometric analysis and surgical perspectives. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;31(3):299–309.CrossRef Chen YC, Kuo CH, Cheng CM, Wu JC. Recent advances in the management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: bibliometric analysis and surgical perspectives. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;31(3):299–309.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ. 1997;314(7079):498–502.CrossRef Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ. 1997;314(7079):498–502.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Using Kano diagrams to display the most cited article types, affiliated countries, authors and MeSH terms on spinal surgery in recent 12 years
Authors
Po-Hsin Chou
Yu-Tsen Yeh
Wei-Chih Kan
Tsair-Wei Chien
Shu-Chun Kuo
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Spinal Surgery
Published in
European Journal of Medical Research / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2047-783X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-021-00494-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

European Journal of Medical Research 1/2021 Go to the issue