Traditional and alternative metrics in the 100 most-cited articles utilizing PearlDiver: Mapping clinical and scientific influence through bibliometric analysis

IF 1.8 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS

Journal of orthopaedics Pub Date : 2026-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-24 DOI:10.1016/j.jor.2025.12.010

Reginald O. Chinweze , David Dallas-Orr , Preston Lee , Sean T. Campbell , Zachary C. Lum , Barton L. Wise

{"title":"Traditional and alternative metrics in the 100 most-cited articles utilizing PearlDiver: Mapping clinical and scientific influence through bibliometric analysis","authors":"Reginald O. Chinweze , David Dallas-Orr , Preston Lee , Sean T. Campbell , Zachary C. Lum , Barton L. Wise","doi":"10.1016/j.jor.2025.12.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>PearlDiver (PD) is a widely used claims database, especially in orthopaedics, yet its academic footprint remains ill-defined. This study aimed to identify the 100 most-cited PD publications, and evaluate the topics described, sub-stratify the most “viral” articles, and compare the change over time of several article performance metrics. We hypothesized that the most cited articles would (1) address epidemiological questions, and (2) focus on arthroplasty, spine, and sports medicine.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Cross-sectional bibliometric study of the 100 most-cited PD articles identified in Web of Science. Records were ranked by total citations and screened in Covidence. Inclusion required full-text confirmation that PD was used as a data source. Extracted variables included total citations, citations per year (CPY) or citation density, Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), and number of X (formerly Twitter) posts. Keyword co-occurrence networks were generated, and correlations among metrics were assessed using Pearson coefficients.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The top 100 accumulated 6756 total citations (median 54, IQR 38–92). Sports (n = 39), spine (n = 29), and arthroplasty (n = 20) dominated subspecialty representation. The leading studies included Buckland et al. (Bone Joint J, 2017; 227 citations), Montgomery et al. (Arthroscopy, 2013; 303 citations), and Abrams et al. (Am J Sports Med, 2013; 297 citations). Citation density was highest among recent sports and hip arthroscopy studies (Zusmanovich et al., Arthroscopy, 2022; 26.2 citations/year). Arthroplasty papers showed greater AAS and online visibility (mean AAS 41.8 vs sports 16.2; p = 0.041). CPY correlated strongly with total citations (r = .813, p < 0.01), and moderately with X posts (r = .430, p < 0.01), with weaker correlation with AAS (r = .368, p < 0.01). Keyword networks revealed clustering around utilization, complications, and revision themes.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>PearlDiver research is concentrated in sports medicine, spine, and arthroplasty. While PD studies are cost-efficient and highly visible, they remain constrained by reliance on billing codes and limited clinical granularity. The database is most impactful for hypothesis generation, policy guidance, and national utilization analyses rather than directly in clinical practice and decision making.</div></div><div><h3>Level of evidence</h3><div>Level III</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16633,"journal":{"name":"Journal of orthopaedics","volume":"75 ","pages":"Pages 87-93"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of orthopaedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0972978X25004854","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

PearlDiver (PD) is a widely used claims database, especially in orthopaedics, yet its academic footprint remains ill-defined. This study aimed to identify the 100 most-cited PD publications, and evaluate the topics described, sub-stratify the most “viral” articles, and compare the change over time of several article performance metrics. We hypothesized that the most cited articles would (1) address epidemiological questions, and (2) focus on arthroplasty, spine, and sports medicine.

Methods

Cross-sectional bibliometric study of the 100 most-cited PD articles identified in Web of Science. Records were ranked by total citations and screened in Covidence. Inclusion required full-text confirmation that PD was used as a data source. Extracted variables included total citations, citations per year (CPY) or citation density, Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), and number of X (formerly Twitter) posts. Keyword co-occurrence networks were generated, and correlations among metrics were assessed using Pearson coefficients.

Results

The top 100 accumulated 6756 total citations (median 54, IQR 38–92). Sports (n = 39), spine (n = 29), and arthroplasty (n = 20) dominated subspecialty representation. The leading studies included Buckland et al. (Bone Joint J, 2017; 227 citations), Montgomery et al. (Arthroscopy, 2013; 303 citations), and Abrams et al. (Am J Sports Med, 2013; 297 citations). Citation density was highest among recent sports and hip arthroscopy studies (Zusmanovich et al., Arthroscopy, 2022; 26.2 citations/year). Arthroplasty papers showed greater AAS and online visibility (mean AAS 41.8 vs sports 16.2; p = 0.041). CPY correlated strongly with total citations (r = .813, p < 0.01), and moderately with X posts (r = .430, p < 0.01), with weaker correlation with AAS (r = .368, p < 0.01). Keyword networks revealed clustering around utilization, complications, and revision themes.

Conclusion

PearlDiver research is concentrated in sports medicine, spine, and arthroplasty. While PD studies are cost-efficient and highly visible, they remain constrained by reliance on billing codes and limited clinical granularity. The database is most impactful for hypothesis generation, policy guidance, and national utilization analyses rather than directly in clinical practice and decision making.

Level of evidence

Level III

查看原文本刊更多论文

使用PearlDiver的100篇最常被引用文章中的传统和替代指标：通过文献计量分析绘制临床和科学影响

pearldiver （PD）是一个广泛使用的理赔数据库，特别是在骨科领域，但其学术足迹仍然不明确。本研究旨在确定100个被引用最多的PD出版物，并评估所描述的主题，对最“病毒”文章进行子分层，并比较几个文章性能指标随时间的变化。我们假设被引用最多的文章将(1)涉及流行病学问题，(2)关注关节成形术、脊柱和运动医学。方法对Web of Science中被引用次数最多的100篇PD论文进行横向文献计量学研究。记录按引用总量排序，并在冠状病毒期间进行筛选。纳入需要全文确认PD被用作数据源。提取的变量包括总引用次数、每年引用次数（CPY）或引用密度、Altmetric注意力评分（AAS）和X篇（以前的Twitter）帖子的数量。生成关键词共现网络，并使用Pearson系数评估指标之间的相关性。结果前100名被引频次累计6756次，中位数54次，IQR 38 ~ 92次。运动（n = 39）、脊柱（n = 29）和关节成形术（n = 20）是主要的亚专科代表。主要研究包括Buckland等人（Bone Joint J, 2017； 227次引用），Montgomery等人（Arthroscopy, 2013； 303次引用）和Abrams等人（Am J Sports Med, 2013； 297次引用）。在最近的运动和髋关节镜研究中，引用密度最高（Zusmanovich等人，arthroscopy, 2022； 26.2次引用/年）。关节成形术论文显示更高的AAS和在线可见度（平均AAS 41.8 vs运动16.2;p = 0.041）。CPY与总被引量呈强相关（r = 0.813, p < 0.01），与X发文量呈中等相关（r = 0.430, p < 0.01），与AAS相关性较弱（r = 0.368, p < 0.01）。关键词网络揭示了围绕利用率、复杂性和修订主题的聚类。结论pearldiver的研究主要集中在运动医学、脊柱和关节成形术方面。虽然PD研究具有成本效益和高度可见性，但它们仍然受到依赖计费代码和有限的临床粒度的限制。该数据库对假设生成、政策指导和国家利用分析最有影响力，而不是直接用于临床实践和决策。证据等级：III级

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of orthopaedics ORTHOPEDICS-

CiteScore

3.50

自引率

6.70%

发文量

202

审稿时长

56 days

期刊介绍： Journal of Orthopaedics aims to be a leading journal in orthopaedics and contribute towards the improvement of quality of orthopedic health care. The journal publishes original research work and review articles related to different aspects of orthopaedics including Arthroplasty, Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, Trauma, Spine and Spinal deformities, Pediatric orthopaedics, limb reconstruction procedures, hand surgery, and orthopaedic oncology. It also publishes articles on continuing education, health-related information, case reports and letters to the editor. It is requested to note that the journal has an international readership and all submissions should be aimed at specifying something about the setting in which the work was conducted. Authors must also provide any specific reasons for the research and also provide an elaborate description of the results.