Research trends and hotspots of Colles fracture: a bibliometric analysis from 1980 to 2023
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Colles fractures, a common type of distal radius fracture, predominantly affect older adults and are often associated with osteoporosis. Understanding the epidemiology, treatment methods, and complications of Colles fractures is crucial for improving patient outcomes. Objective: This bibliometric analysis aims to assess the trends, influential research, and collaboration patterns in Colles fracture studies from 1980 to 2023, providing insights into emerging areas of research. Methods: Literature was retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) using the search term "Colles fracture". A total of 948 relevant documents, including 901 articles and 47 reviews, were analyzed. VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and bibliometrix were utilized for visualization and data analysis, focusing on publication trends and hotspots. Results: The analysis revealed a steady increase in publications and citation counts, peaking around 2010, with a notable decline in publication output post-2010 while citations continued to rise. The USA led in both publication volume and citation impact, with significant contributions from England, Canada, Germany, and Japan. Key authors such as Cooney WP and Jupiter JB were identified as influential, while the Journal of Hand Surgery-American Volume emerged as the leading publication outlet. Keyword analysis indicated a growing emphasis on epidemiology and outcomes research, reflecting broader public health concerns. Conclusion: This bibliometric analysis highlights the evolving research on Colles fractures from 1980 to 2023. Despite a plateau in publication rates, citations continue to increase, indicating the lasting influence of earlier studies. Significant advancements have been made in treatment methods, particularly in external fixation (EF) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). The growing interdisciplinary focus on Colles fractures, osteoporosis, and rehabilitation underscores the need for continued research to enhance clinical outcomes and preventive measures.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.097 | 0.146 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".