Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Assessment of Characteristics and Methodological Quality of the Top 50 Most Cited Articles on Platelet-Rich Plasma in Musculoskeletal Medicine
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Assessment of Characteristics and Methodological Quality of the Top 50 Most Cited Articles on Platelet-Rich Plasma in Musculoskeletal Medicine
Do you wish to request the book?
Assessment of Characteristics and Methodological Quality of the Top 50 Most Cited Articles on Platelet-Rich Plasma in Musculoskeletal Medicine
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Assessment of Characteristics and Methodological Quality of the Top 50 Most Cited Articles on Platelet-Rich Plasma in Musculoskeletal Medicine
2022
Overview
Background:
The wide range of clinical applications and controversial scientific evidence associated with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy in musculoskeletal medicine requires an examination of the most commonly cited studies within this field.
Purpose:
To identify the 50 most cited articles on PRP, assess their study design, and determine any correlations between the number of citations and level of evidence (LoE) or methodological quality.
Study Design:
Cross-sectional study.
Methods:
The Web of Science database was queried to identify the top 50 most cited articles on PRP in orthopaedic surgery. Bibliometric characteristics, number of citations, and LoE were recorded. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS), Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS), and Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics (MIBO). The Pearson correlation coefficient and Spearman correlation coefficient (r
S) were used to determine the degree of correlation between the number of citations or citation density and LoE, MCMS, MINORS score, and MIBO score. Student t tests were performed for 2-group comparisons.
Results:
The top 50 articles were published between 2005 and 2016 in 21 journals. The mean number of citations and citation density were 241 ± 94 (range, 151-625) and 23 ± 8, respectively, and the mean LoE was 2.44 ± 1.67, with 15 studies classified as LoE 1. The mean MCMS, MINORS score, and MIBO score were 66.9 ± 12.6, 16 ± 4.7, and 12.4 ± 3.7, respectively. No correlation was observed between the number of citations or citation density and LoE, MCMS, MINORS score, and MIBO score. A significant difference (P = .02) was noted in LoE in articles from the United States (3.56 ± 1.7) versus outside the United States (2 ± 1.5). Seven of the 8 in vivo studies were published between 2005 and 2010, whereas 19 of the 25 clinical outcome investigations were published between 2011 and 2016. Studies that were published more recently were found to significantly correlate with number of citations (r
S = –0.38; P = .01), citation density (r
S = 0.36; P = .01), and higher LoE (r
S = 0.47; P = .01).
Conclusion:
The top 50 most cited articles on PRP consisted of high LoE and fair methodological quality. There was a temporal shift in research from in vivo animal studies toward investigations focused on clinical outcomes.
Publisher
SAGE Publications,Sage Publications Ltd,SAGE Publishing
Subject
