4.5 Review

Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis of Scientific Publications on Atlantoaxial Spine Surgery Based on Web of Science and VOSviewer

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 137, 期 -, 页码 435-+

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.01.171

关键词

Atlantoaxial; Bibliometric analysis; VOSviewer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Atlantoaxial spine surgery is a challenge to spinal surgeons because of its proximity to neurovascular structures. This study aimed to identify and analyze the scientific publications in atlantoaxial spine surgery from different countries and institutions. METHODS: Clarivate Analytics Web of Science was used to search all articles for information on atlantoaxial spine surgery. The annual research, countries, journals, authors, institutions, citation frequency, and journal metrics were extracted. These results from countries and hotspots (keywords in publications) were subjected to co-occurrence analysis using VOSviewer, after which the top 100 most-cited articles were analyzed further. RESULTS: A total of 3161 articles were included. A trend toward an increasing number of publications on atlantoaxial spine surgery in recent years was evident. Among all countries, the United States contributed the most publications. Seth Gordhandas Sundarda Medical College had the highest number of publications among institutions. Among all research categories, fixation and fusion were the most common areas discussed. The screw-rod system described in the most-cited article (cited 823 times) appeared to be the most popular fixation method. With the development of C1 and C2 screw technology, the screwrod system is becoming increasingly popular. CONCLUSIONS: The atlantoaxial spine surgery literature has grown continuously in recent years. The United States is the largest contributor in this field. Fixation and fusion are the most common areas, and fixation-related studies should be closely followed. The screw-rod fixation system is becoming increasingly popular.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据