To present and analyze the characteristics of the 100 most cited articles that used cerebral angiography for clinical evaluation and intervention.
Method
Two researchers independently extracted articles from multiple databases and ranked them by citation count to create the “top 100 most-cited” list.
Results
The top 100 articles received a total of 115,243 citations. Twenty-one of the top 100 articles were published between 2006 and 2010. Most studied disorder was ischemic stroke (n = 35), and cerebral angiography was used most frequently for diagnosis (n = 88).The United States was affiliated with the highest number of articles (n = 62), with Stroke publishing most articles (n = 22). Public sources funded 39 articles, private sources funded 35, and 38 articles reported conflicts of interest. Thirty-six studies were randomized controlled trials, and male authors held the majority of both first (n = 90) and senior (n = 88) authorship positions.
Conclusion
Within the scope of this study, the following features may define a typical highly cited article—a randomized controlled clinical trial conducted in the United States that studied ischemic stroke, used cerebral angiography for diagnosis, and was published relatively recently in a high-impact journal by male first and senior authors.
BullJW. A review of cerebral angiography. Proc Roy Soc Med1949; 42(11): 880–890.
2.
ArticoMSpoletiniMFumagalliL, et al.Egas moniz: 90 years (1927-2017) from cerebral angiography. Front Neuroanat2017; 11: 81. DOI: 10.3389/fnana.2017.00081.
3.
KirmaniJFJanjuaNAl KawiA, et al.Therapeutic advances in interventional neurology. NeuroRx2005; 2(2): 304–323.
4.
BaumRABaumS. Interventional radiology: a half century of innovation. Radiology2014; 273(2): S75–S91.
5.
BienertIROliveiraRCAndradePB, et al.Bibliometric indexes, databases and impact factors in cardiology. Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc2015; 30(2): 254–259.
6.
MoedHF. The impact-factors debate: the ISI’s uses and limits. Nature2002; 415(6873): 731–732.
7.
HirschJE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2005; 102(46): 16569–16572.
8.
EllegaardOWallinJA. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: how great is the impact?Scientometrics2015; 105(3): 1809–1831.
9.
BelterCW. Bibliometric indicators: opportunities and limits. J Med Libr Assoc2015; 103(4): 219–221.
10.
MoedHF. New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Arch Immunol Ther Exp2009; 57(1): 13–18.
11.
BolJASheffelAZiaN, et al.How to address the geographical bias in academic publishing. BMJ Glob Health2023; 8(12): e013111.
12.
Martín-MartínAOrduña-MaleaEDelgado López-CózarE. Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google scholar, Web of science, and Scopus: a multidisciplinary comparison. Scientometrics2018; 116(3): 2175–2188.
13.
MaingardJPhanKRenY, et al.The 100 most cited articles in the endovascular management of intracranial aneurysms. J Neurointerventional Surg2018; 10(9): 859–868.
14.
ZhouKZMaingardJPhanK, et al.The 100 most cited articles in the endovascular treatment of thoracic and abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg2018; 68(5): 1566–1581.
15.
van EckNJWaltmanL. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics2010; 84(2): 523–538.
16.
SynnestvedtMBChenCHolmesJH. CiteSpace II: visualization and knowledge discovery in bibliographic databases. AMIA Annu Symp Proc2005; 2005: 724–728.
17.
AriaMCuccurulloC. Bibliometrix : an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics2017; 11(4): 959–975.
18.
GradeproGDT. GRADEpro guideline development tool [software]. McMaster University and evidence prime, 2024. Available at: https://gradepro.orgaccessed 10 October 2024.
19.
MerlinTWestonATooherR. Extending an evidence hierarchy to include topics other than treatment: revising the Australian ‘levels of evidence’. BMC Med Res Methodol2009; 9: 34.
20.
SmallH. Co‐citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. J Am Soc Inf Sci1973; 24(4): 265–269.
21.
OlivecronaH. Complications of cerebral angiography. Neuroradiology1977; 14(4): 175–181.
22.
AspelinP. Effect of ionic and non-ionic contrast media on red cell deformability in vitro. Acta Radiol Diagn1979; 20(1): 1–12.
23.
LadurnerGZilkhaEIliffD, et al.Measurement of regional cerebral blood volume by computerized axial tomography. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry1976; 39(2): 152–158.
24.
AlbersGWThijsVNWechslerL, et al.Magnetic resonance imaging profiles predict clinical response to early reperfusion: the diffusion and perfusion imaging evaluation for understanding stroke evolution (DEFUSE) study. Ann Neurol2006; 60(5): 508–517.
25.
European Carotid Surgery Trialists’ Collaborative Group. MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial: interim results for symptomatic patients with severe (70-99%) or with mild (0-29%) carotid stenosis. Lancet1991; 337(8752): 1235–1243.
26.
GuglielmiGViñuelaFDionJ, et al.Electrothrombosis of saccular aneurysms via endovascular approach. Part 2: preliminary clinical experience. J Neurosurg1991; 75(1): 8–14.
27.
North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial CollaboratorsBarnettHJMTaylorDW, et al.Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med1991; 325(7): 445–453.
28.
European Carotid Surgery Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Endarterectomy for moderate symptomatic carotid stenosis: interim results from the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial. Lancet1996; 347(9015): 1591–1593.
29.
UnoM. History of carotid artery reconstruction around the world and in Japan. Neurol Med-Chir2023; 63(7): 283–294.
30.
FurlanAHigashidaRWechslerL, et al.Intra-arterial prourokinase for acute ischemic stroke. The PROACT II study: a randomized controlled trial. Prolyse in Acute Cerebral Thromboembolism. JAMA1999; 282(21): 2003–2011.
31.
HackeWKasteMFieschiC, et al.Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial of thrombolytic therapy with intravenous alteplase in acute ischaemic stroke (ECASS II). Second European-Australasian Acute Stroke Study Investigators. Lancet1998; 352(9136): 1245–1251.
32.
GönnerFRemondaLMattleH, et al.Local intra-arterial thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke1998; 29(9): 1894–1900.
33.
del ZoppoGJFerbertAOtisS, et al.Local intra-arterial fibrinolytic therapy in acute carotid territory stroke. A pilot study. Stroke1988; 19(3): 307–313.
34.
BrottTGHobsonRW2ndHowardG, et al.Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med2010; 363(1): 11–23.
35.
MüllerMDLyrerPBrownMM, et al.Carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2020; 2(2): CD000515.
36.
NogueiraRGJadhavAPHaussenDC, et al.Thrombectomy 6 to 24 hours after stroke with a mismatch between deficit and infarct. N Engl J Med2018; 378(1): 11–21.
37.
AlbersGWMarksMPKempS, et al.Thrombectomy for stroke at 6 to 16 hours with selection by perfusion imaging. N Engl J Med2018; 378(8): 708–718.
38.
FiorellaDHirschJAMoccoJ. In search of the optimized stroke trial design. J Neurointerventional Surg2014; 6(4): 249–251.
39.
ChirasJBoriesJBarthMO, et al.Cerebral angiography in ischemic strokes. Neuroradiology1985; 27(6): 521–538.
40.
KnauthMvon KummerRJansenO, et al.Potential of CT angiography in acute ischemic stroke. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol1997; 18(6): 1001–1010.
41.
MenonBKd’EsterreCDQaziEM, et al.Multiphase CT angiography: a new tool for the imaging triage of patients with acute ischemic stroke. Radiology2015; 275(2): 510–520.
42.
WarlowC. Carotid endarterectomy: does it work?Stroke1984; 15(6): 1068–1076. DOI: 10.1161/01.str.15.6.1068.
43.
VasavadaAMSinghPFirdausA, et al.Carotid endarterectomy versus stenting for the treatment of patients with carotid artery stenosis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus2023; 15(2): e35070.
44.
LeeKSZhangJJNguyenV, et al.The evolution of intracranial aneurysm treatment techniques and future directions. Neurosurg Rev2022; 45(1): 1–25.
45.
BrookesBC. Bradford’s law and the bibliography of science. Nature1969; 224(5223): 953–956.
46.
SiddiqiTJUsmanMSKhanMS, et al.The 100 most influential papers in the field of thrombolytic therapy: a bibliometric analysis. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs2017; 17(4): 319–333.
47.
PonceFALozanoAM. Highly cited works in neurosurgery. Part I: the 100 top-cited papers in neurosurgical journals. J Neurosurg2010; 112(2): 223–232.
48.
LinkAM. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA1998; 280(3): 246–247.
49.
CampbellFM. National bias: a comparison of citation practices by health professionals. Bull Med Libr Assoc1990; 78(4): 376–382.
50.
DidegahFThelwallMGazniA. An international comparison of journal publishing and citing behaviours. Journal of Informetrics2012; 6(4): 516–531.
51.
MahawarKKMalviyaAKumarG. Who publishes in leading general surgical journals? The divide between the developed and developing worlds. Asian J Surg2006; 29(3): 140–144.
52.
LangerADíaz-OlavarrietaCBerdichevskyK, et al.Why is research from developing countries underrepresented in international health literature, and what can be done about it?Bull World Health Organ2004; 82: 802–803.
53.
KeiserJUtzingerJTannerM, et al.Representation of authors and editors from countries with different human development indexes in the leading literature on tropical medicine: survey of current evidence. BMJ2004; 328(7450): 1229–1232.
54.
SiriwardhanaC. Promotion and reporting of research from resource-limited settings. Inf Disp2015; 8: 25–29.
55.
McDermottMGelbDJWilsonK, et al.Sex differences in academic Rank and publication rate at top-ranked US neurology programs. JAMA Neurol2018; 75(8): 956–961.
56.
FoxGSchwartzAHartKM. Work-family balance and academic advancement in medical schools. Acad Psychiatry2006; 30(3): 227–234.
57.
ZhugeYKaufmanJSimeoneDM, et al.Is there still a glass ceiling for women in academic surgery?Ann Surg2011; 253(4): 637–643.
58.
NalleballeKShengSLiC, et al.Industry payment to vascular neurologists: a 6-year analysis of the open payments program from 2013 through 2018. Stroke2020; 51(4): 1339–1343.
59.
GajjarAACovellMMMuhammadN, et al.Utilization and reimbursement of diagnostic cerebral angiograms: a medicare trends analysis from 2013 to 2020. Intervent Neuroradiol2024.
60.
FisherMAlbersGW. Advanced imaging to extend the therapeutic time window of acute ischemic stroke. Ann Neurol2013; 73(1): 4–9.
61.
PiscopoAZanatyMDlouhyK. Contemporary methods for detection and intervention of distal medium and small vessel occlusions. J Clin Med2023; 12(18): 6071.
62.
DundamadappaSIyerKAgrawalA, et al.Multiphase CT angiography: a useful technique in acute stroke imaging-collaterals and beyond. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol2021; 42(2): 221–227.
63.
JiaBZhangXMaN, et al.Comparison of drug-eluting stent with bare-metal stent in patients with symptomatic high-grade intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol2022; 79(2): 176–184.
64.
UedaTTakaishiSYoshieT, et al.Long-term outcome and factors associated with restenosis after combination therapy of balloon angioplasty and stenting for symptomatic intracranial stenosis. BMC Neurol2022; 22(1): 477.
MoreyJRZhangXYaegerKA, et al.Real-world experience with artificial intelligence-based triage in transferred large vessel occlusion stroke patients. Cerebrovasc Dis2021; 50(4): 450–455.
67.
SeglenPO. Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. Acta Orthop Scand1998; 69(3): 224–229.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
