Systematic reviews on reports of hip fractures in Web of Science: a bibliometric analysis of publication activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The objective of this study was to analyze the trend in the publication of systematic reviews on hip fractures through a bibliometric approach. Methods Literature including systematic reviews or meta-analyses on hip fractures was searched from the ISI Web of Science citation database. The search results were analyzed in terms of geographical authorship and frequency of citation by country, institution, author, and periodical distribution. Results A total of 654 published systematic reviews from 1995 to 2013 in 48 countries or regions were retrieved. The United States (171) was the predominant country in terms of the number of total publications, followed by the United Kingdom (149), Canada (120), Australia (76), and China (54). The number of systematic reviews significantly increased during the last 6 years, especially in China. The production ranking changed in 2012, at which time the United States and China were the leaders in the yearly production of systematic reviews on hip fractures. The amount of literature (27 publications) from China contributed almost one-quarter of the total literature (109 publications) in 2012. However, the average number of citations of each article from China was still low (6.70), while the highest number of citations of each article was from Sweden (193.36). The references were published in 239 different journals, with 15 journals contributing to 41.3% of the systematic reviews on hip fractures. The two journals that contributed the most were Osteoporosis International (10.6%) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (7.6%). The predominant institution in terms of the number of publications was McMaster University (36) in Canada. Conclusions The best evidence in the field of hip fractures has attracted increasing attention. Systematic reviews on hip fractures from China have been increasingly more frequent during the past 6 years, particularly in 2012.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.057 | 0.096 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".