The Evolution of Research on Orbital Floor Fractures: A Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Orbital floor fractures present complex functional and aesthetic challenges for surgeons. A review of the most influential literature in this area can help clinicians gain a deeper understanding of current research trends and inform evidence-based treatment strategies. METHODS: The Clarivate Web of Science database was used to identify the 50 most-cited articles on orbital fractures. A bibliometric analysis was conducted to assess publication metrics, including authorship, year of publication, level of evidence classification, and country of origin, as well as to identify emerging research topics. RESULTS: The top 50 most-cited articles, published between 1957 and 2017, accumulated a total of 5618 citations. "Clinical Recommendations for Repair of Isolated Orbital Floor Fractures-An Evidence-based Analysis" by Burnstine received the highest number of citations (n = 294), followed by "Nonsurgical Management of Blow-out Fractures of Orbital Floor" (n = 211) by Putterman and colleagues, and "Intervention Within Days for Some Orbital Floor Fractures: The White-eyed Blowout" (n = 200) by Jordan and colleagues. Ellis authored the highest number of studies (n = 3), and the United States led in publication output (n = 23). CONCLUSION: Bibliometric analysis of influential research on orbital fractures helps clinicians navigate the extensive body of literature on the subject. Furthermore, understanding key research trends enables clinicians to refine their clinical practices and stay informed about evolving research trends.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.068 | 0.103 |
| 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".