Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Study Design

Bibliometric analysis.

Objectives

Analysis of literature on surgical management of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures to identify the top contributing authors, countries, collaborators and the trends of research.

Methods

A search to identify original articles published in English between 2011 and 2020 was done using specific keywords in the Web of Science database. After screening, 442 articles met the criteria which were analysed using Biblioshiny R software.

Results

The top contributing authors were Yang HL (first), Wang H (second) and Hao DJ (third). Amongst the universities, the major contributing ones were Soochow University (first), Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine (second) and University of Toronto (third). China (first), USA (second) and South Korea (third) were the top contributing countries. The maximum articles were published in Spine, Osteoporosis International and European Spine Journal. The most common articles were on comparisons between kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty, the associated complications and newer modalities of investigations of osteoporosis. Major work surrounds the keywords kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty which are significantly clustered as compared to others.

Conclusions

The study identified the most prolific contributing authors (Yang HL, Wang H) and universities (Soochow University, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine), the journals where this work is considered more impactful (Spine, Osteoporosis International) and the top contributing countries (China, USA) and collaborations. This study showed that major work is regarding the cement augmentation techniques of kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty and the attempts at establishing newer techniques of diagnosis of osteoporosis. The study also brought out major differences in findings from that of the previously published study on spine trauma bibliometrics.

Keywords

bibliometric global trends osteoporosis vertebroplasty kyphoplasty classification compression fracture fragility fracture

Introduction

The prevalence of fractures due to osteoporosis is on the rise, especially over the past 2 decades, conceivably due to the increasing average life span of humans.¹ The osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) are estimated to contribute from 16% to 27% of all osteoporotic fractures.^2,3 A meta-analysis including 86 studies over 5 continents revealed the prevalence of OVCF to be 18.3% in the year 2021.⁴ The burden of the disease is immense and is estimated to increase in the future.

There has been a heightened attention to OVCFs in the recent years probably since the principles of management of these fractures are different from those in patients with a normal bone stock. OVCFs usually occur by a low energy trauma and generally respond to non-operative measures, including pain management, bracing, and rehabilitation.^3,5 In the few who do not respond to conservative treatment, vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty may be required. Very few OVCFs with instability need surgical stabilisation, decompression and/or anterior augmentation.⁶ The options for the surgical management are not perfect and are evolving. There are issues related to the ideal selection of patients who should be treated surgically and the techniques that should be used to improve outcomes and minimize post-operative complications.⁷ Furthermore, there has been a growing emphasis on the development of classification of OVCF that will serve as a framework to describe and categorize the diverse spectrum of fractures encountered in clinical practice and direct treatment. Another reason for the heightened attention to OVCFs is the significant impact that it has on mortality and morbidity of the patients.^5,8,9 There is a 5-fold increase in the risk of another fracture in post-menopausal females who sustain an OVCF.¹⁰

Given the unique features of OVCFs and a growing number of scientific publications related to its surgical management, a separate bibliometric analysis will add value. There has been a dearth of publications in this field.^11,12 The studies published so far have either covered osteoporosis comprehensively or only vertebral augmentation component of surgical management, focussed only on identifying the most cited articles or the top contributors or have covered a much larger period thus not being able to bring out the most recent trends.^11,12

The purpose of the current study was to assess and evaluate the contributions of various authors, centres, societies, and nations by an organised and methodical survey of published literature in the evolving field of surgical management of OVCF and how these findings differ from those for traumatic vertebral fractures as documented in a previously published study. These findings can also identify gaps that need further investigation, identify strong and weak global collaboration networks and help establish funding priorities and guide future prospects. A secondary goal of the study was to use bibliometric analysis to identify recent trends in research in the past decade.

Methods

The methods to extract and assess the manuscripts has been described in an earlier manuscript looking at the bibliometric analysis of articles on spine trauma.¹³ The Clarivate Web of Science (WoS) Citation Index Expanded database was used to search articles on 14th March 2023 related to the following keywords, ((“osteoporo* vertebral compression fracture” OR “Fragility fracture” OR OVCF OR “compression fracture”) AND (vertebroplasty OR Kyphoplasty OR corpectomy OR “vertebral augmentation” OR surgery OR classification OR cement OR balloon OR fixation))]. Only original research papers and reviews articles published between 2011 and 2020 in English were chosen for analysis. The search was limited to the last decade in order to get information about the recent trends and directions of research. Limiting the time period to 2020 gave a time window for studies to mature enough such that their significance could be analysed.

The number of citations of these articles were used to sort them from highest to lowest. The ‘full records’ for the document were exported. Two investigators (HC and JM) reviewed and screened the title and abstract of the articles that were relevant.

The bibliometric analysis was done using Biblioshiny package of R software (version 4.2.1).^14,15 The software has standard specifications for determining the top contributors, providing graphical and tabular results for the thematic analysis. The top contributing authors, affiliations, countries and journals were descriptively analysed.

The core journals in the field were analysed using the Bradford’s law.¹⁶ The most commonly used author key words were determined to assess the current research hot topics in the field. Furthermore, network analysis of co-cited keywords and strength of collaborations were made.

Results

The search yielded 1392 articles out of which 442 articles were selected after checking for relevance using the above-mentioned inclusion and exclusion criteria. Out of these, majority were (n = 388, 87.8%) original articles and the remaining (n = 53, 11.9%) were review articles.

Authors and Co-Authors

A total of 2215 authors were analysed from these articles for their productivity analysis. On average, there were 6.19 authors per document. The most impactful top 15 authors are listed in Table 1. The top authors included Yang HL with 16 articles (h-index-11), followed by Wang H (h-index-8), Hao DJ (h-index-7), Liu T (h-index-7) and Chen L (h-index-6) with each having more than 7 articles published in this field. Amongst the top 5 contributors, the first, third as well as fourth are orthopaedic surgeons, second is a physiologist whereas the fifth is a physiatrist. Yang HL also had the highest number of citations (380) but Wang H had the lowest number of citations (97) amongst the top 15 authors. As depicted in the Figure 1, Yang HL along with many other authors including Lee SH have made contributions throughout the last decade.

Table 1.

Most Prolific and Relevant Authors.

No.	Authors	h-index	Number of Articles	Total Citations
1	Yang HL	11	16	380
2	Wang H	8	9	97
3	Hao DJ	7	8	164
4	Liu T	7	7	165
5	Chen L	6	7	120
6	Liang D	6	6	170
7	Pflugmache r R	6	6	161
8	Fan SW	5	6	124
9	Lee SH	5	5	105
10	Li Y	5	5	102
11	Liu CL	5	5	162
12	Liu H	5	5	135
13	Meng B	5	5	116
14	Wang J	5	5	172
15	Wang Y	5	5	133

Figure 1.

The contributions of top authors over time.

Sources (Journals)

The top relevant journals in the field are presented in Table 2. These include Spine (impact factor (IF)-4.297), Osteoporosis International (IF-3.59), and European Spine journal (IF- 2.72). As analysed by Bradford’s law, the group of journals where substantial publications have been made are several (n = 8) which suggests that the publications are not limited to only a few journals (Figure 2). These journals have been active from 2011 except World Neurosurgery that started publishing only after 2015. The impact factor for the most relevant journals ranged from 3 (Spine) to 176 (The New England Journal of Medicine) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Most Relevant Journals.

#	Source	Affiliating Society	Impact Factor	Number of Articles
1	Spine	Spine Society of Europe and others	3.0	1702
2	Osteoporosis International		4.6	948
3	European Spine Journal	Euro Spine, the Spine Society of Europe	2.721	675
4	American Journal Neuroradiology	American Society of Neuroradiology	4.966	621
5	Journal of Bone and Mineral Research	American Society for Bone and Mineral Research	6.2	545
6	Spine Journal	North American Spine Society	4.297	383
7	Radiology	Radiological Society of North America	19.7	304
8	The New England Journal of Medicine	Massachusetts Medical Society	176.082	280
9	Lancet		168.9	265
10	Journal Bone and Joint Surgery. American volume	American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons	5.3	253
11	Bone		4.1	251
12	Pain Physician	American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians	4.965	234
13	Journal of Spinal Disorder and Techniques (Clinical Spine Surgery)		1.9	224
14	Journal of Neurosurgery-Spine	American Association of Neurological Surgeons	3.467	181
15	Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology	Society of Interventional Radiology	3.682	175

Figure 2.

The contributions of journals analyzed using Bradford’s Law.

Affiliations, Countries and Collaborations

The top 3 countries that have contributed to this literature include China, USA, and South Korea (Table 3) (Figure 3). There are 3 Asian countries in the top 5 contributors with China publishing markedly more than all other countries. Among the top 15 contributors, the ratio of multiple country authors within the publications is relatively high for Australia (0.88), Sweden (0.6), Spain and UK (0.5) whereas this ratio is lowest for Korea, Turkey and China suggesting lower collaboration. The average citations per article were highest for publications from Netherlands (53.40), followed by Australia (40.75), and United Kingdom (32.00). Comparing the top contributing countries and the trends of publication volume, Figure 4 shows that number of articles from USA and China have dramatically increased over the last decade as compared to others.

Table 3.

Most Relevant Countries and Related Citation Metrics.

No.	Country	Articles	MCP/SCP Ratio	Population (Million)	Citations	Average Citation per Article
1	China	198	0.045	1455.52	3930	19.85
2	USA	62	0.21	339.10	1494	24.10
3	South Korea	37	0	51.75	682	18.43
4	Japan	20	0.05	125.35	243	12.15
5	Germany	13	0.308	84.30	269	20.69
6	United Kingdom	12	0.5	68.93	384	32.00
7	Canada	11	0.455	39.57	145	13.18
8	France	10	0.2	65.69	211	21.10
9	Italy	10	0.2	60.20	97	9.70
10	Australia	8	0.875	26.36	326	40.75
11	Spain	6	0.5	47.40	175	29.17
12	Turkey	6	0	84.80	72	12.00
13	Netherlands	5	0.4	17.25	267	53.40
14	Sweden	5	0.6	10.50	162	32.40
15	Switzerland	5	0.4	8.84	33	6.60

Note: MCP/SCP Ratio – Multiple country publications/Single Country Publication.

Figure 3.

The contribution of various countries across the world. The darker shades correspond to higher contribution to the field.

Figure 4.

The contribution from various countries across time.

Ten of the top 15 contributing affiliations are from China with highest numbers from Soochow University, (China), Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine (China), and University of Toronto (Canada) with 27, 17 and 16 articles respectively (Table 4).

Table 4.

Most Relevant Affiliation.

	Affiliations	Country	Number of Articles
1	Soochow University	China	27
2	Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine	China	17
3	University of Toronto	Canada	16
4	Peking University	China	14
5	Wenzhou Medical University	China	14
6	Zhejiang University	China	14
7	National Yang Ming University	Taiwan	12
8	Xi’an Jiaotong University	China	12
9	Mayo Clinic	United States	10
10	The University of British Columbia	Canada	10
11	Capital Medical University	China	9
12	Monash University	Australia	9
13	Shandong University	China	9
14	Sun Yat-Sen University	China	9
15	Taipei Medical University	China	9

Research Trends

The top 2 most cited articles were about bone score (Table 5). These were by Silva BC et al tilted “Trabecular Bone Score: A Non-invasive Analytical Method Based Upon the DXA Image” with 484 citations followed by the article by Harvey NC et al titled “Trabecular bone score (TBS) as a new complementary approach for osteoporosis evaluation in clinical practice” with 268 citations. Many of the most cited articles compare effectiveness and complications of different surgical techniques of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. Similarly, the keyword analysis showed that most commonly used keywords in the articles apart from OVCF and osteoporosis were related to vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty (Figures 5 and 6).

Table 5.

Top Contributing Authors and Manuscripts.

#	First Author	Year	Source	Title	Total Global Citations
1	Silva BC	2014	Journal of Bone Mineral Research	Trabecular Bone Score: A Noninvasive Analytical Method Based Upon the DXA Image	484
2	Harvey NC	2015	Bone	Trabecular bone score (TBS) as a new complementary approach for osteoporosis evaluation in clinical practice	268
3	Farrokhi MR	2011	Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine	Randomized controlled trial of percutaneous vertebroplasty vs optimal medical management for the relief of pain and disability in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures	180
4	Rho YJ	2012	European Spine Journal	Risk factors predicting the new symptomatic vertebral compression fractures after percutaneous vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty	129
5	Nieuwen Huijse MJ	2011	Spine Journal	Cement leakage in percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: Identification of risk factors	127
6	Anderson PA	2013	Journal of Bone Mineral Research	Meta-Analysis of Vertebral Augmentation Compared with Conservative Treatment for Osteoporotic Spinal Fractures	110
7	Yang EZ	2016	Spine	Percutaneous Vertebroplasty Versus Conservative Treatment in Aged Patients with Acute Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures	106
8	Tsoumakidou G	2017	Cardiovascular and International Radiology	CIRSE Guidelines on Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation	96
9	Zhan Y	2017	World Neurosurgery	Risk factors for cement leakage after vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty: a meta-analysis of published evidence	94
10	Ma XL	2012	European Spine Journal	Balloon kyphoplasty vs percutaneous vertebroplasty in treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: Grading the evidence through a systematic review and meta-analysis	91
11	Staples MP	2011	BMJ: British Medical Journal	Effectiveness of vertebroplasty using individual patient data from 2 randomised placebo-controlled trials: Meta-analysis	84
12	Han SL	2011	International Orthopaedics	Percutaneous vertebroplasty vs balloon kyphoplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: a meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials	80
13	Buchbinder R	2018	Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews	Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture	74
14	Goldstein CL	2015	Neurosurgery	Management of the Elderly with Vertebral Compression Fractures	72
15	Yi XD	2014	Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery	Recompression in new levels after percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty compared with conservative treatment	71

Figure 5.

The number of the top occurrences of the author keywords.

Figure 6.

Thematic analysis to decipher the structure of knowledge using co-citation analysis of author keywords.

Discussion

OVCF poses a great challenge to the patients along with the clinicians and researchers.^17-19 The patients suffer from constant back pain and these fractures impact not only their activities of daily living, physical as well as mental health, morbidity and quality of life but also the mortality.¹⁷ On the treating physicians front, the varied medical and surgical management of these fractures requires detailed planning and execution which is different from the standard management of vertebral fractures.^5,20

In 1969, bibliometric studies were described by Alan Pritchard as an effective means to analyse the trends of research and to understand where are we heading.²¹ Apart from this we also understand the contributions from countries, authors, institutions apart from the preferred journals where the research is published. With the advancement of imaging technology and knowledge about the variety of clinical presentations and prognosis, classification systems for vertebral fractures have evolved over time. The surgeons’ quest has been to find the ideal classification system which is simple to use and accurate at the same time. With this publication we aim to understand the trends of the osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures research from the perspective of a surgeon. Hence the research based on the decision making and surgical management of these fractures is considered in this bibliometric study.

The study will benefit researchers, policy makers, institutions, government agencies, editors and publishers as brought out in our previous publication on spine trauma bibliometric analysis. Researchers might use it to identify organisations and authors to investigate the possibility to collaborate.

There are developments that promise better outcomes such as adoption of MISS, an improved understanding of the biomechanics of osteoporotic bone, enhanced cement formulations and advances in medical imaging and patient-specific planning for surgery. A bibliometric analysis reveals the trends and patterns in research related to the surgical management of OVCF. Research in any area is dependent on the funding it receives. The funding for enhancing the science for OVCF management will need to match the challenges posed by an aging population with increased susceptibility to bone-related conditions. An analysis of published literature will help to assess past funding priorities and future prospects.

Upon analysis of most cited publications (Table 5), the 2 most cited articles were about bone score. The ones at the top are reviews and management guidelines. Reviews are cited more frequently than individual publications. These are then followed by randomized controlled trials that compare the outcomes of various treatment modalities of OVCF. Most of the other articles in the top 15 were on management of these fractures by either vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. The top articles included meta-analyses that helped establish benefits of 1 treatment option over the other. Apart from these, 12 out of 15 high cited articles were on complications with the technique (cement leakage and occurrence of subsequent fractures). Other studies focused on attempts of finding other modalities of investigations for diagnosis of osteoporosis.

The current analysis highlights the diversity of domains of studies including biomechanical, clinical, and translational research. Ongoing scientific advancement will similarly require such integrated approaches and sustained collaborative efforts. The study helped identify gaps that need further investigation. It revealed paucity in literature on validation of classification systems and optimal surgical technique for fixation in osteoporotic spine.

Spine, Osteoporosis International, European Spine Journal, American Journal of Neuroradiology and Journal of Bone Mineral Research were the journals that contributed the most to the literature. As depicted in Table 2, the journals that publish a higher number of studies related to OVCF also have a higher h-index in the current analysis, suggesting that they publish the most consequential and seminal work related to this field.

China, United States, Korea, Japan, Germany and United Kingdom contributed the most publications on OVCF in descending order. China primarily had individual publications and along with Korea and Turkey showed lower multilateral collaborations then countries like Australia, Sweden, Spain and UK thus suggesting a scope for these countries to focus more on increasing such research collaborations, which given its importance, are the need of the hour. One may hypothesize that a positive relationship between the number of publications reported on OVCF from a nation correlate with its development metrics, implying that this is due to the country’s greater economic status and a higher fraction of allotted research funding.

The results of our study are different from other bibliometric studies on osteoporosis because of differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria. While our study investigated surgical management of osteoporosis, Li et al (2022)¹¹ analyzed osteoporosis overall and that by Wang et al (2022)¹² looked into specifically vertebral augmentation. Moreover, we looked into papers published from 2011 to 2020 whereas Li et al¹¹and Wang et al¹² looked into studies published from 1900 till 2022. Osteoporosis International was the journal with maximum papers in the study by Li et al¹¹in the year 2022, whereas Spine had the most papers in our study (n = 1702), followed by Osteoporosis International (n = 948). Similarly, Spine had the most papers in the study by Wang et al¹² with Osteoporosis International being the 12th in the list. The most commonly publishing countries were United states, France, and Australia in the study by Wang et al¹² and China, USA and Korea by Li et al¹¹ and our study. The most cited authors were Kallmes et al and Buchbinder et al in the study by Wang et al¹² whereas, Yang HL, Hao DJ and Zhang L were the most prolific authors as analyzed by the study by Li et al¹¹ and our study.

We have also previously published the results of bibliometric analysis of spine trauma using a similar methodology.¹³ Though, as mentioned earlier, we had anticipated that the findings of this study would differ due to the unique features of OVCF, we were surprised to note the striking differences. The most striking difference was that China outscored substantially all other countries in the number of OVCF publications which were more than 3 times that of US, the country second in the list. This was exactly the opposite of the findings of the spine trauma bibliometric study, wherein the number of publications from US was more than 3 times those from China. There are 3 Asian countries (China, Korea and Japan) in the top 5 contributors in the OVCF bibliometric study whereas the spine trauma bibliometric study just had China. Ten out of 15 top affiliations were Chinese in OVCF bibliometric study whereas there were none in the spine trauma bibliometric study. Even though China ranked second in the number of publications in the spine trauma bibliometric study, there were no manuscripts in the top 15 most cited ones, whereas in the OVCF bibliometric study, half of the most cited manuscripts were Chinese. Eleven of the top 15 authors in the OVCF bibliometric study are Chinese and 2 from Taiwan as compared to none of the top 15 in the spine trauma bibliometric study. The most preferred journals in the OVCF bibliometric study have journals like Osteoporosis International, American Journal of Neuroradiology and Journal of Bone and Mineral Research in top 5. These are not the mainstream journals for spine research. These striking differences in the 2 studies would be of interest to clinicians, researchers, editors, journals, policy makers and funding agencies.

The exact reasons for China leading the charge when it comes to research and publications pertaining to OVCF is not known. China constitutes one-fifth of the global population and even higher percentage of the elderly population.²² As per population census 2020 results, people aged 60 or above account for 18.7% of the total population. This was only 13.26% in 2010 with the number of people aged 60 or above having increased by over 86 million in the last decade.²³ Being the country with the largest population of older adults globally, it is likely that China experiences a higher incidence of osteoporotic fractures as compared to other nations. The country’s large and aging population and the higher incidence of OVCF may be offering a vast patient base for studies and clinical analysis and this may be one of the reasons why China plays a leading role in research and publications on OVCF. The high publication output may be influenced by strategic national-level research priorities decided by the policy makers, and not solely by demographics or disease burden. It may also reflect the increasing tendency of the Chinese surgeons and institutions to publish and to publish in English. However, there may be other reasons and this needs to be studied further.

The cited publications make up the nodes in the co-citation network, which are the building blocks of the knowledge base. In the field of OVCF, the articles that are cited the most frequently serve as the foundation for the significant research of future. As a result, the classification and management modalities of OVCF have been the subject of numerous researches and are the piece of literature that has received the most citations.

A comprehensive bibliometric analysis is the strength of this study. However the study has limitations as well. Although WoS is considered by its authors to be among the most comprehensive and trustworthy databases due to its listing and cataloguing of reputable high-impact factor journals, PubMed and Scopus not being included in the study could be a limitation. Although WoS is considered by its authors to be among the most comprehensive and trustworthy databases due to its listing and cataloguing of reputable high-impact factor journals, PubMed and Scopus not being included in the study could be a limitation since it can limit the comprehensiveness of the search because of the risk of overlooking studies published in journals not indexed by WoS and potentially lead to missing relevant studies. However, the authors presume that databases like PubMed are largely included within Web of Science’s indexing, particularly for biomedical literature. Also, there is a substantial overlap between Web of Science and Scopus indexing that may possibly minimize the risk of omitting key publications. The next limitation of the current study is that articles written in English were only considered for this analysis. This may have caused omission of work published in other languages, especially considering that the top contributors belong to non-English speaking countries. However, English is the dominant language in scientific publishing with most prolific researchers publishing their work in English regardless of their native language.^24,25 Only the last 10 years were considered in order to keep the focus on more recent trends. Some freshly published works may not have attained greater citation counts, but this is a limitation of any bibliometric analysis. Furthermore, there is a possibility that the present investigation did not cover all relevant research despite the extensive use of keywords. We also did not dilute the analysis by contemplating at the remaining lesser-known publications because doing so would have undermined the purpose of our study, which was to identify the top contributors.

Conclusion

This bibliometric study provides comprehensive knowledge about recent literature in the field of surgical management of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. It brings out the top contributing authors (Yang HL, Wang H and Hao DJ), universities (Soochow University, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine and University of Toronto) and countries (China followed by USA and Korea). It also identified scoring/classification systems and effectiveness as well as complications of different surgical techniques as the recent trends in research in the past decade. The study also brought out major differences in findings from that of the previously published study on spine trauma bibliometrics.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This study was organized by AO Spine through the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma & Infection, a focused group of international experts. AO Spine is a clinical division of the AO Foundation, which is an independent medically-guided not-for-profit organization. Study support was provided directly through AO Network Clinical Research.

Author Contributions

Harvinder Singh Chhabra was involved in the conceptualization of the idea and the study design. He was involved in data analysis and interpretation, drafting and critical revision of the article and final approval of the version to be submitted. Jitesh Manghwani & Vandana Phadke were involved in the study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation, drafting of the article, critical revision and final approval of version to be submitted. Richard Bransford was involved in the conceptualization of the idea, study design, interpretation and critical revision of article and final approval of version to be submitted. Gregory Schroeder, Mohammad El-Sharkawi, Andrei Fernandes Joaquim, Klaus Schnake, & Olesja Hazenbiller were involved in the interpretation, critical revision of the article and final approval of the version to be submitted.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Harvinder Singh Chhabra

Vandana Phadke

Mohammad El-Sharkawi

Andrei Fernandes Joaquim

Klaus John Schnake

References

Hadji

Klein

Gothe

, et al. The epidemiology of osteoporosis. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2013;110(4):52-57. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2013.0052

Johnell

Kanis

. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17(12):1726-1733. doi:10.1007/s00198-006-0172-4

Burge

Dawson-Hughes

Solomon

Wong

King

Tosteson

. Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22(3):465-475. doi:10.1359/jbmr.061113

Salari

Ghasemi

Mohammadi

, et al. The global prevalence of osteoporosis in the world: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1):609. doi:10.1186/s13018-021-02772-0

Sozen

Ozisik

Calik Basaran

. An overview and management of osteoporosis. Eur J Rheumatol. 2017;4(1):46-56. doi:10.5152/eurjrheum.2016.048

Camacho

Usmani

Strickland

Banagan

Ludwig

. The use of minimally invasive surgery in spine trauma: a review of concepts. J Spine Surg. 2019;5(Suppl 1):S91-S100. doi:10.21037/jss.2019.04.13

Hart

. Complications of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. Tech Reg Anesth Pain Manag. 2007;11(3):164-170. doi:10.1053/j.trap.2007.05.010

Son

Park

Kim

Park

. Mortality risk after the first occurrence of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures in the general population: a nationwide cohort study. PLoS One. 2023;18(9):e0291561. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0291561. PMID: 37708119.

Praveen

Aspelund

Ferguson

, et al. Refracture and mortality risk in the elderly with osteoporotic fractures: the AGES-Reykjavik study. Osteoporos Int. 2024;35:1231-1241. doi:10.1007/s00198-024-07096-3

10.

Lindsay

Cooper

Hanley

Barton

Broy

Flowers

. Risk of new vertebral fracture. J Am Med Assoc. 2001;285(3):7-10.

11.

Tian

, et al. A worldwide bibliometric analysis of published literature on osteoporosis vertebral compression fracture. J Pain Res. 2022;15(August):2373-2392. doi:10.2147/JPR.S375119

12.

Wang

Zheng

, et al. Analysis of the most influential publications on vertebral augmentation for treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: a review. Méd Sur. 2022;101(31):E30023. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000030023

13.

Chhabra

Phadke

Manghwani

, et al. An assessment of the world’s contribution to spine trauma care: a bibliometric analysis of classifications and surgical management; an AO spine knowledge forum trauma initiative. Glob Spine J. 2024;14(3):1061-1069. doi:10.1177/21925682231205104

14.

Aria

Cuccurullo

. bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Informetr. 2017;11(4):959-975. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

15.

R Core Team . R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Core Team; 2021. Published online https://www.r-project.org/

16.

Bradford

. Sources of information on specific subjects 1934. J Inf Sci. 1985;10(4):176-180. doi:10.1177/016555158501000407

17.

Jalava

Sarna

Pylkkänen

, et al. Association between vertebral fracture and increased mortality in osteoporotic patients. J Bone Miner Res. 2003;18(7):1254-1260. doi:10.1359/jbmr.2003.18.7.1254

18.

Karmakar

Acharya

Biswas

. Evaluation of percutaneous vertebroplasty for management of symptomatic osteoporotic compression fracture. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(8):RC7-RC10. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2017/25886.10461

19.

Melton

. Adverse outcomes of osteoporotic fractures in the general population. J Bone Miner Res. 2003;18(6):1139-1141. doi:10.1359/jbmr.2003.18.6.1139

20.

III

CJD

DiPompeo

Varacallo

. Vertebral Compression Fractures. StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; Published online August 4, 2023. (Accessed May 1, 2024)

21.

Pritchard

. Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? J Doc. 1969;4(25):348-349.

22.

Office of the Leading Group for the Seventh National Census of the State Council . Major Figures on 2020 Population Census of China. 1st ed. Beijing: China Statistics Press Co., Ltd.; 2021:9.

23.

Wang

Shu

Tang

, et al. The prevalence of osteoporosis in China, a community based cohort study of osteoporosis. Front Public Health. 2023;16:1084005. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1084005

24.

Ramírez-Castañeda

. Disadvantages in preparing and publishing scientific papers caused by the dominance of the English language in science: the case of Colombian researchers in biological sciences. PLoS One. 2020;15(9):e0238372. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238372

25.

Meneghini

Packer

. Is there science beyond English? Initiatives to increase the quality and visibility of non-English publications might help to break down language barriers in scientific communication. EMBO Rep. 2007;8(2):112-116. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400906

An Assessment of the World’s Contribution to Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Bibliometric Analysis of Surgical Management;An AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma and Infection Initiative

Abstract

Study Design

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Results

Authors and Co-Authors

Sources (Journals)

Affiliations, Countries and Collaborations

Research Trends

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Author Contributions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References