Assessing the relevancy of "citation classics" in neurosurgery. Part II: Foundational papers in neurosurgery.

Related Articles

Assessing the relevancy of "citation classics" in neurosurgery. Part II: Foundational papers in neurosurgery.

World Neurosurg. 2017 Apr 21;:

Authors: Bohl MA, Turner JD, Little AS, Nakaji P, Ponce FA

Abstract
The second part of this study reanalyzes Ponce and Lozano's (2010) list of classics to create a new list of "foundational" papers in neurosurgery. Ponce and Lozano (2010) previously published a list of 106 neurosurgery classics, as defined by Garfield and his 400 citation criterion. We used the Web of Science citation reports to create graphs for each study showing the total citations it received as a function of time. Each graph was subjectively analyzed independently and scored as "foundational" or "classic-only," based on whether the trend of citations received per year was uptrending, neutral, or downtrending. Of the 101 evaluated classics, 53 qualified as foundational. Over half of these studies were published in JNS (13), NEJM (12), or Lancet (5). Grading systems, randomized trials, and prospective studies were most likely to achieve foundational status. Only 30% of functional and 17% of endovascular classics qualified as foundational (in comparison to 100% of spine classics), suggesting that these fields are rapidly changing or less mature subspecialties still developing a foundational literature base. By assessing citation counts as a function of time, we are able to differentiate classic neurosurgical studies that are critical to modern-day practice from those that are primarily of historic interest. Given the exponential growth of literature in our field, analyses such as these will become increasingly important to both trainees and senior neurosurgeons who strive to educate themselves on the data that drive modern-day clinical decision-making.

PMID: 28438655 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

http://ift.tt/2q6MGyN