Skip to main content
Download PDF

A bibliometric analysis of published research employing musculoskeletal imaging modalities to evaluate foot osteoarthritis

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research volume 15, Article number: 39 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives

Temporal and global changes in research utilising imaging to assess foot osteoarthritis is currently unknown. This study aimed to undertake a bibliometric analysis of published research to: (1) identify the imaging modalities that have been used to evaluate foot osteoarthritis; (2) explore the temporal changes and global differences in the use of these imaging modalities; and (3) to evaluate performance related to publication- and citation-based metrics.

Methods

A literature search was conducted using Scopus to identify studies which had used imaging to assess foot osteoarthritis. Extracted data included publication year, imaging modality, citations, affiliations, and author collaboration networks. Temporal trends in the use of each imaging modality were analysed. Performance analysis and science mapping were used to analyse citations and collaboration networks.

Results

158 studies were identified between 1980 and 2021. Plain radiography was the most widely used modality, followed by computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound imaging (USI), respectively. The number of published studies increased over time for each imaging modality (all P ≥ 0.018). The most productive country was the United States of America (USA), followed by the United Kingdom and Australia. International authorship collaboration was evident in 57 (36.1%) studies. The average citation rate was 23.4 per study, with an average annual citation rate of 2.1.

Conclusions

Published research employing imaging to assess foot osteoarthritis has increased substantially over the past four decades. Although plain radiography remains the gold standard modality, the emergence of MRI and USI in the past two decades continues to advance knowledge and progress research in this field.

Peer Review reports

Background

Osteoarthritis is a progressive joint disease involving degradation of articular cartilage, subchondral bone and surrounding soft tissue structures, leading to symptoms of pain and stiffness [1]. Small joints of the feet are often overlooked as a site of involvement relative to other joints commonly affected by osteoarthritis [2, 3]. Population-based epidemiological studies have reported a high prevalence of radiographic osteoarthritis in the feet, with up to 39% of older adults having first metatarsophalangeal joint involvement [2].

Musculoskeletal imaging has an essential role in the diagnosis and assessment of osteoarthritis [4,5,6,7,8]. Plain radiography has traditionally been regarded as the leading modality for the assessment of osseous changes in foot osteoarthritis [9], and there is emerging evidence that assesses the diagnostic sensitivity of radiography and its association to clinical symptoms for foot disorders [10,11,12]. However, the advent of more advanced techniques, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and ultrasound imaging (USI) have gained increasing recognition for their fundamental role in understanding the pathophysiology of osteoarthritis due to their ability to observe subclinical osseous and soft tissue changes [13,14,15,16,17,18].

Recommendations published in 2017 by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) highlighted the need for further imaging research into less commonly studied sites of osteoarthritis, such as the foot [19]. However, the global status of collaboration and temporal trends of research employing various imaging modalities to assess osteoarthritis in the foot is currently unknown. Published research is central in providing information and improving knowledge, and publication and citation-based metrics provide a means to monitor the productivity and impact, or influence, of published information [20].

In order to evaluate the scope of research utilising imaging to assess foot osteoarthritis, including global and temporal trends, and performance-based metrics, a bibliometric analysis is required. Bibliometric analyses summarise information to uncover emerging trends in article and journal performance, collaboration patterns, and research constituents [20, 21]. The objectives of this study were to conduct a bibliometric analysis of published literature used to evaluate foot osteoarthritis to: (1) identify the imaging modalities that have been used; (2) explore the temporal changes and global differences in the use of these imaging modalities; and (3) evaluate performance related to publication- and citation-based metrics.

Methods

The procedure and best practice guidelines proposed by Donthu et al. [20] were used to frame the bibliometric analysis methodology. The techniques for bibliometric analysis manifest across two categories: (1) performance analysis and (2) science mapping [20]. In essence, performance analysis examines the contributions of research constitutes, which is descriptive in nature. Whereas science mapping focuses on the relationships between research constitutes [20, 22,23,24]. Both techniques were used to address the study objectives. Performance analysis was used to examine publication-related metrics and recognises the influence of various constituents (authors, institutions/affiliations, countries, and journals) on publication performance which is measured using a range of metrics (total publications, number of contributing authors, co-authored publications, number of active years of publication, total citations, average citations and annual citation rate). Science mapping was used to examine the relationships between research constituents [22,23,24]. Two science mapping techniques were used; (1) citation analysis, to identify the most influential publications in the field and (2) co-authorship analysis, to examine the social interactions or relations among authors and their affiliations and equivalent impacts on the development of the research field [20].

Search strategy

The search strategy required for a bibliometric analysis is similar to that of a systematic review. However, it must identify a large enough volume of articles to warrant bibliometric analysis and fulfil the requirements of the analysis techniques, yet also be focused enough to remain in the dedicated research field [20]. An electronic search was designed and conducted by two authors (PM and SS) in August 2021 using the search terms displayed in Supplementary File 1. The two most commonly utilised databases being Scopus®, and Web of Science®. It is accepted practice when using metadata for bibliometric analysis to use either Scopus® or Web of Science® [20]. It is recommended to select one appropriate database to mitigate the need for consolidation of data, minimising unnecessary action items can help to mitigate potential human errors [20]. The Scopus® database (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands) was selected as it has the largest abstract and citation database of research literature [25]. As of January 2020, Scopus® had in excess of 25,100 active titles and over 550 articles in press [26]. Additionally Scopus® includes a more expanded spectrum of journals than PubMed and Web of Science® [27]. There were no restrictions on date, allowing a search for studies published from the database’s earliest record (1963) through to August 2021. The electronic search was supplemented with hand-searching of references lists from included studies and review articles to identify additional eligible papers.

Study selection

The titles and abstracts of all identified studies were downloaded from the Scopus® database and exported into Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), an online literature review application [28], suitable for bibliometric analysis. In the first stage of selection the titles and abstracts were independently screened by two authors (PM and SS). Studies were included if they used imaging to assess the foot in patients with foot osteoarthritis (inclusive of post-traumatic foot osteoarthritis), for the purpose of recruitment or as a research outcome, reported original research findings, and were published in English. Studies were excluded if they did not report original research findings, including reviews, case reports, commentaries, letters, non-human studies, conference proceedings, or editorials, or did not report which imaging modality was used to assess the foot. Studies that evaluated ankle osteoarthritis but did not also include the assessment of foot osteoarthritis were excluded. To determine the final articles for inclusion, the full texts of all articles included at the title/abstract screening stage were retrieved and reassessed against the criteria. Conflicts were discussed between the two authors (PM and SS) until consensus was achieved.

Data extraction

All studies were imported into Biblioshiny (based on R version 3.6.1, Bibliometrix package version 2.2.1; University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy, 2016) [29] for data extraction. The following bibliometric indicators were extracted from each study: year of publication, journal name, journal impact factor (IF) (in prior year, 2020 using the Web of Science Journal Citation Reports™ tool (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA), number of citations (determined the Scopus® database (Elsevier)), author names, total authors per manuscript, and institutional affiliation of each author. The extent of collaboration for each study was also determined based on four categories: (1) “international collaboration” in which studies involved collaboration with international authors; (2) “bi-national collaboration” in which studies originated from authors affiliated to only two institutions/affiliations from the same country; (3) “multi-national collaboration” in which studies were authored by researchers from three or more institutions/affiliations from the same country; and (4) “no collaboration” in which all authors were affiliated with the same institution [30, 31].

Additional data from each included study were also extracted into a standardised Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Version 2016, Microsoft Corp., Redmond, Washington, USA), including: the imaging modality/modalities used (plain radiography, CT, MRI or USI), the specific joints in the foot that were assessed, the reason for assessment (outcome measure vs. recruitment screening tool) and the study design. Finally, study design was classified using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence [32], in which randomised controlled trials are classified as Level 2, cohort/longitudinal studies as Level 3, and case-series and case-control studies as Level 4 (note: systematic reviews (Level 1) and studies involving mechanism-based reasoning (Level 5) were not eligible for inclusion in the current analysis).

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the study characteristics and data related to each imaging modality. Bibliometric data were analysed separately for each imaging modality using the bibliometrix package, Biblioshiny. Studies utilising more than one imaging modality to assess osteoarthritis in the foot were included in analyses for each imaging modality used. As described above, the bibliometric analysis included both a performance analysis (to determine the total publications, number of contributing authors, co-authored publications, number of active years of publication (number of years from publication to 2021), total citations, average citations and annual citation rate); and science mapping (to undertake a citation analysis and co-authorship analysis). The citation analysis included evaluating the difference in publication performance of each imaging modality over time. In this analysis, the impact of a publication is determined by the number of citations that it receives. The analysis enables the most influential publications in a research field to be ascertained [20]. The co-authorship analysis also included generation of a collaboration world map representing the extent of international author collaborations across the included studies.

In addition, to complement the bibliometric analysis and further explore publication trends over time, linear regression models were used to analyse temporal trends in the use of each imaging modality over time using SPSS (for example, increased or decreased imaging modality use over time) (Version 26.0. IBM Corp, Armonk, NY). Studies were grouped into decades, based on year of publication. The 2021 publication year was excluded from this analysis due to incomplete data (i.e., data was collected up to and including August 2021).

Results

Characteristics of included studies

A total of 1905 studies were initially identified, of which 158 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis (Supplementary File 2). Characteristics of the included studies are displayed in Table 1. The included studies were published between 1980 and 2021 with an annual percentage growth rate of 9.6%. The majority of included studies employed plain radiography to assess the foot, followed by CT, MRI and USI. Twenty-four studies used two imaging modalities, and the remaining 134 studies used a single imaging modality. When characterised by the Oxford 2011 Level of Evidence, eight (5.1%) studies were Level 2, 58 (36.7%) were Level 3, and 92 (58.2%) were Level 4. One hundred and thirteen (71.5%) studies used imaging to assess a study outcome, nine (5.7%) studies used imaging in the recruitment process to screen participants for inclusion, and 36 (22.8%) used imaging as both a screening tool and outcome measure. The most common foot joint scanned was the first metatarsophalangeal joint (n = 64 studies, 40.5%). Supplementary File 3 presents the proportion of studies assessing each specific joint across each imaging modality.

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies (n = 158)
Full size table

Assessment of temporal changes in the use of imaging modalities

The earliest study was published in 1980 and the most recent study in 2021. The earliest study published using plain radiography to assess foot osteoarthritis was 1980, while the use of CT did not appear until 1995, MRI until 2006, and USI until 2009 (Fig. 1). This finding is also consistent with the average years from publication to 2021, which was 8.4 years for studies using plain radiography, 8.1 years for CT, 6.9 years for MRI, and 7.0 years for USI. Each modality showed a significant increase in the number of publications across decades for plain radiography (P for trend < 0.001), CT (P for trend = 0.001), MRI (P for trend < 0.001), and USI (P for trend = 0.018).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Cumulative frequency of studies published per year for each imaging modality. Note: data from studies using more than one imaging modality (n = 24) were counted for each imaging modality used

Full size image

Assessment of global differences in the use of imaging modalities

The 158 included studies were published across 22 different countries based on the first author’s affiliation (Fig. 2). The most productive country was the USA, with 36 (22.8%) included studies based on the first authors affiliation, followed by the United Kingdom, publishing 20 (12.7%), and Australia, publishing 17 (10.8%). The most common first author affiliation for studies using plain radiography was the USA (n = 34 studies), while CT studies were associated with first authors from the USA (n = 4) and Germany (n = 4). The most common first author affiliation for MRI studies was the United Kingdom (n = 3 studies), and for USI studies was Italy (n = 2 studies) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Number of studies associated with the first authors affiliated country for each imaging modality. Note: data from studies using more than one imaging modality (n = 24) were counted for each imaging modality used

Full size image

Fifty-seven (36.1%) of the included articles demonstrated international collaboration, 34 (21.5%) articles had bi-national collaboration, 43 (27.2%) articles had evidence of multi-national collaboration, and 24 (15.2%) articles had no collaborative links outside of a single institution. The most frequent international authorship link occurred between the United Kingdom and Australia (15 articles). A world map displaying international collaborative research links by country is displayed in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Visual representation of international collaborative authorship networks. Note: Different shades of blue indicate different rates of collaboration between that country with any other country: dark blue = higher collaboration; grey = no collaboration. The red lines indicate countries where there were two or more research collaborations: thicker lines indicate a greater number of collaborations

Full size image

Performance analysis

Citations

The 158 included studies had a total of 3690 citations, with an average citation rate of 23.4 per study (range: 0–202 citations). Fourteen (8.9%) studies received no citations; however, these had recent publication dates in 2021 (n = 8 studies) and 2020 (n = 6 studies). Total citations, average citations per study, and average annual citation rates per study are displayed in Table 2. Although studies using plain radiography had the highest total citations, studies using CT had the highest average citations per study and highest average annual citation rate. A summary of the top five most cited countries based on the first author’s country for each imaging modality is displayed in Supplementary File 4. The most cited study was published by Paley et al. [33] in 1993 and used plain radiography to assess the hindfoot (n = 202 citations). This study represented 5.5% of the total citations for all included studies. The twenty most cited studies represented 50.5% of the total citations. The ten most cited articles are displayed in Supplementary File 5.

Table 2 Citations across imaging modalities
Full size table

Journals

The 158 included studies were published in 64 different journals (Supplementary File 6). Foot and Ankle International published the highest proportion of studies (n = 24, 15.8%). There were 42 journals (27.6%) where only one of the included articles were published. The journals that published three or more publications accounted for 57.9% of all identified studies. Studies utilising plain radiography were published across 55 different journals, CT across 15 journals, MRI across 14 journals, and USI across four journals. A 2020 IF was available for 51 (79.7%) of the journals where the included articles were published. The mean IF for the included studies was 3.74, median IF was 2.83, with an IF range of 0.51–19.10. The articles published in Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-Series A were the most cited, with a total of 931 citations, average citations per study of 116 and an average annual citation rate per study of 6.0.

Authorship and affiliations

A total of 661 authors contributed to the 158 included studies, with a mean of five co-authors per study. Studies using plain radiography had an average author/study count of 5.3, CT had 4.5, and MRI had 5.9. A recent USI study had the largest number of authors listed for a single study (n = 24) [30], bringing the average co-authors per study up to 11.8 for studies using USI. Only one study was authored by a single author [34]. Supplementary File 7 displays the ten most published authors based on their appearance as first author, or as an author listed anywhere in the author list. Hylton Menz had the largest number author appearances (including first author and any author), and total citations.

The 158 included studies were conducted across 232 individual affiliations/institutions. Supplementary File 7 shows the top ten most productive affiliations based on the number of published studies associated with the affiliation of any listed author. La Trobe University located in Australia and Keele University in the United Kingdom were the institutions that published the highest numbers of studies (n = 27 and n = 19, respectively).

Discussion

This is the first bibliometric analysis of published studies employing musculoskeletal imaging to assess the foot in people with osteoarthritis. The findings have shown a notable increase in the publication of studies in this field over the past four decades. Despite this being a likely generic trend across many healthcare fields, this is of relevance given research in the field of foot osteoarthritis needs to be accelerated [35]. Although plain radiography remains the earliest and most widely used in research to assess foot osteoarthritis, CT, MRI, and USI have become increasingly more common in the past decade.

Research specific to foot osteoarthritis is less advanced than that of other joints, including knee and hip osteoarthritis [36,37,38,39]. However, a notable surge in imaging studies for foot osteoarthritis, particularly at the first metatarsophalangeal joint, was noted in the current analysis, the timeline of which is consistent with publication of the 2017 EULAR recommendations to increase research in this field [19]. Although studies using plain radiography have substantially increased over the years, the results from this analysis have shown an increased uptake of more advanced imaging. This is consistent with the reported use of MRI, CT, and USI for general musculoskeletal assessments which have increased 615, 758, and 500%, respectively, over the past two decades [40].

To date, one of the most notable imaging advancements specific to foot osteoarthritis was the development of the La Trobe Radiographic Foot Atlas in 2007 [9]. The impact of this study was evident by its position among the top 10 most cited studies in this analysis. This atlas has led to significant improvements in the ability to consistently estimate prevalence of this condition [41], as well as understand different patterns of foot joint involvement [12]. Although more advanced modalities, including MRI and USI are emerging as more accurate evaluators of both bone and soft-tissue abnormalities in foot osteoarthritis [17, 42], it is likely that plain radiography will continue to remain the gold standard until validity of these more advanced techniques are determined. Ongoing research in this area is crucial in determining the capacity of modern imaging modalities to detect early inflammatory changes that precede osseous involvement, therefore informing more timely management approaches that aim to prevent further structural progression [7, 8, 43, 44].

The USA accounted for the largest volume of published studies, based on the first author’s affiliation, which primarily utilised plain radiography to assess foot osteoarthritis. This finding is comparable with previous bibliometric studies conducted in other medical fields in which the USA is consistently associated the highest research production [45,46,47]. The USA, despite producing the largest volume of work, had the fewest international collaborations. Studies from this region were published by large numbers of different authors affiliated with several different institutions within the USA. In contrast, studies from the United Kingdom and Australia demonstrated the most frequent international collaborations and tended to involve the same authors affiliated with a small number of institutions. This may reflect the more frequent publication of studies employing CT, MRI and USI in European countries. Clinical-based surveys have shown that specific imaging modalities, for example USI, are more widely used in Europe compared with USA and Australasia [48, 49], which may be due to variations in the structure of musculoskeletal radiology training across countries [50]. This finding highlights the importance of ongoing international collaboration in this research field [51,52,53,54], with different researchers and institutions contributing different skill sets based on their specific knowledge of different imaging modalities.

The performance analysis confirms the continuing use of plain radiography to assess foot osteoarthritis, with studies using plain radiography having the highest citation rate per study, and seven of the top ten most cited studies employing this modality. Citations are regarded as a measure of the impact or influence of a publication within its field of research [20, 55, 56]. The IF of journals are also regarded as an indicator of the influence and quality of their published studies [30, 57]. In the current analysis, the median journal IF was 2.83 for included studies, which is a relatively high median for the field based on an analysis by SCI Journal in 2018 [58]. SCI Journal found that only 2% of journals have an IF of 10 or more, 13% with IF of 4 or more and 20% with an impact of 3 or more. An IF greater than 2.26 places a journal in the top 40% of medical journals, indicating that the published studies are influential in their field [30, 57]. However, the validity of the IF as an accurate, meaningful and useful measure of determining research quality is largely debated [59,60,61,62,63]. Despite these limitations, IF is the most commonly used and arguably the best existing metric for evaluating the bibliometric impact of published research [61].

The results of this study have several limitations. Firstly, a single database (Scopus®) was used for study identification and some peer-reviewed journals are not indexed in Scopus®. Although hand-searching of reference lists of included studies was undertaken to address this limitation, it is possible that not all studies employing musculoskeletal imaging to assess foot osteoarthritis were included. Secondly, the results generated from the search strategy may have been affected by not including individual foot joint names as keywords. Thirdly, non-English studies were excluded from the current analysis which may have resulted in an underrepresentation of the scientific productivity of non-English speaking countries in the current study. Fourthly, in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of all studies in this field, our analysis was not limited to studies in which imaging was used to assess a primary outcome measure. This therefore limits our ability to comment on studies specifically aiming to advance knowledge and progress research in this field. Finally, it should also be acknowledged that the majority of studies included in this analysis were representative of a lower level of evidence according to the OCEBM (Level 3 or 4 evidence) [32], and may not be considered as influential as studies of higher evidence.

In conclusion, published research employing imaging to assess foot osteoarthritis has increased substantially over the past four decades. Although plain radiography remains the gold standard and the most utilised modality for research of foot osteoarthritis, the emergence of MRI, CT and USI in the past two decades continues to advance research in this field. This study has also highlighted the importance of international collaboration in allowing researchers and institutions with different skill sets and knowledge to contribute to ongoing research utilising imaging to evaluate foot osteoarthritis.

Availability of data and materials

All data used in this article can be found on the Scopus database using the search strategy outlined in the Methods section. Reasonable requests for data beyond that contained in the Additional Files will be considered by the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

CT:

Computed Tomography

MRI:

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

USI:

Ultrasound Imaging

EULAR:

European League Against Rheumatism

IF:

Impact Factor

OCEBM:

Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

References

  1. Lane NE, Brandt K, Hawker G, Peeva E, Schreyer E, Tsuji W, et al. OARSI-FDA initiative: defining the disease state of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2011;19(5):478–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Trivedi B, Marshall M, Belcher J, Roddy E. A systematic review of radiographic definitions of foot osteoarthritis in population-based studies. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2010;18(8):1027–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mathiessen A, Fjellstad C, Slatkowsky-Christensen B, Kvien T, Hammer H, Haugen I. The reliability and distribution of foot osteoarthritis assessed by ultrasound and clinical examination in a hand osteoarthritis cohort. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2021;29:S353–S4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hafezi-Nejad N, Guermazi A, Demehri S, Roemer FW. New imaging modalities to predict and evaluate osteoarthritis progression. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2017;31(5):688–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Demehri S, Hafezi-Nejad N, Carrino JA. Conventional and novel imaging modalities in osteoarthritis: current state of the evidence. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2015;27(3):295–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Haugen IK, Slatkowsky-Christensen B, Bøyesen P, Sesseng S, van der Heijde D, Kvien TK. MRI findings predict radiographic progression and development of erosions in hand osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75(1):117–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mathiessen A, Slatkowsky-Christensen B, Kvien TK, Hammer HB, Haugen IK. Ultrasound-detected inflammation predicts radiographic progression in hand osteoarthritis after 5 years. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75(5):825–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kortekaas MC, Kwok W-Y, Reijnierse M, Kloppenburg M. Inflammatory ultrasound features show independent associations with progression of structural damage after over 2 years of follow-up in patients with hand osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(9):1720–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Menz HB, Munteanu SE, Landorf KB, Zammit GV, Cicuttini FM. Radiographic classification of osteoarthritis in commonly affected joints of the foot. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2007;15(11):1333–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kraus VB, Kilfoil TM, Hash TW, McDaniel G, Renner JB, Carrino JA, et al. Atlas of radiographic features of osteoarthritis of the ankle and hindfoot. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2015;23(12):2059–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Menz HB, Munteanu SE, Landorf KB, Zammit GV, Cicuttini FM. Radiographic evaluation of foot osteoarthritis: sensitivity of radiographic variables and relationship to symptoms. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2009;17(3):298–303.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rathod T, Marshall M, Thomas MJ, Menz HB, Myers HL, Thomas E, et al. Investigations of potential phenotypes of foot osteoarthritis: cross-sectional analysis from the clinical assessment study of the foot. Arthritis Care Res. 2016;68(2):217–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Guermazi A, Roemer FW, Crema MD, Englund M, Hayashi D. Imaging of non-osteochondral tissues in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2014;22(10):1590–605.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tan YK, Conaghan PG. Insights into osteoarthritis from MRI. Int J Rheum Dis. 2012;15(1):1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Möller I, Janta I, Backhaus M, Ohrndorf S, Bong DA, Martinoli C, et al. The 2017 EULAR standardised procedures for ultrasound imaging in rheumatology. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(12):1974–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith J, Finnoff JT. Diagnostic and interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound: part 1. Fundamentals. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;1(1):64–75.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Zabotti A, Filippou G, Canzoni M, Adinolfi A, Picerno V, Carrara G, et al. OMERACT agreement and reliability study of ultrasonographic elementary lesions in osteoarthritis of the foot. RMD Open. 2019;5(1):e000795.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Halstead J, Martín-Hervás C, Hensor EM, McGonagle D, Keenan A-M, Redmond AC, et al. Development and reliability of a preliminary foot osteoarthritis magnetic resonance imaging score. J Rheumatol. 2017;44(8):1257–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Sakellariou G, Conaghan PG, Zhang W, Bijlsma JW, Boyesen P, D'agostino MA, et al. EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging in the clinical management of peripheral joint osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(9):1484–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Donthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, Pandey N, Lim WM. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res. 2021;133:285–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Verma S, Gustafsson A. Investigating the emerging COVID-19 research trends in the field of business and management: a bibliometric analysis approach. J Bus Res. 2020;118:253–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Ramos-Rodrígue AR, Ruíz-Navarro J. Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: a bibliometric study of the strategic management journal, 1980-2000. Strateg Manag J. 2004;25(10):981–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cobo MJ, López-Herrera AG, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F. An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: a practical application to the fuzzy sets theory field. J Inf Secur. 2011;5(1):146–66.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Baker HK, Kumar S, Pandey N. Forty years of the journal of futures markets: a bibliometric overview. JFM. 2021;41(7):1027–54.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Guz AN, Rushchitsky J. Scopus: a system for the evaluation of scientific journals. Int J Appl Mech. 2009;45(4):351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Elsevier. Scopus content coverage guide. 2020. Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/Scopus_ContentCoverage_Guide_WEB.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22(2):338–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Johnson N, Phillips M. Rayyan for systematic reviews. J Electron Resour Librariansh. 2018;30(1):46–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Aria M, Cuccurullo C. Bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Inf Secur. 2017;11(4):959–75.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Al-Busaidi IS, Abdulhadi NN, Coppell KJ. Diabetic foot disease research in gulf cooperation council countries: a bibliometric analysis. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2018;18(3):e338.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Sgrò A, Al-Busaidi IS, Wells CI, Vervoort D, Venturini S, Farina V, et al. Global surgery: a 30-year bibliometric analysis (1987–2017). World J Surg. 2019;43(11):2689–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. 2011 levels of evidence. 2011 [cited 2021 September 13]. Available from: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/ocebm-levels-of-evidence.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Paley D, Hall H. Intra-articular fractures of the calcaneus. A critical analysis of results and prognostic factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75(3):342–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Richter M. Total joint replacement of the first metatarsophalangeal joint with Roto-glide as alternative to arthrodesis. Fuß Sprunggelenk. 2019;17(1):42–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Edwards K, Borthwick A, McCulloch L, Redmond A, Pinedo-Villanueva R, Prieto-Alhambra D, et al. Evidence for current recommendations concerning the management of foot health for people with chronic long-term conditions: a systematic review. J Foot Ankle Res. 2017;10(1):1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hunter DJ, Bierma-Zeinstra S. Osteoarthritis. Lancet. 2019;393(10182):1745–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Allen KD, Golightly YM. State of the evidence. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2015;27(3):276–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Vina ER, Kwoh CK. Epidemiology of osteoarthritis: literature update. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2018;30(2):160–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Golightly YM, Gates LS. Foot osteoarthritis: addressing an overlooked global public health problem. Arthritis Care Res. 2021;73(6):767–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gyftopoulos S, Harkey P, Hemingway J, Hughes DR, Rosenkrantz AB, Duszak R. Changing musculoskeletal extremity imaging utilization from 1994 through 2013: a Medicare beneficiary perspective. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(5):1103–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Roddy E, Thomas MJ, Marshall M, Rathod T, Myers H, Menz HB, et al. The population prevalence of symptomatic radiographic foot osteoarthritis in communitydwelling older adults: cross-sectional findings from the clinical assessment study of the foot. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(1):156–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Munteanu SE, Auhl M, Tan JM, Landorf KB, Elzarka A, Tan B, et al. Development and reproducibility of a first metatarsophalangeal joint osteoarthritis magnetic resonance imaging scoring system. Arthritis Care Res. 2020;72(9):1205–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mancarella L, Addimanda O, Pelotti P, Pignotti E, Pulsatelli L, Meliconi R. Ultrasound detected inflammation is associated with the development of new bone erosions in hand osteoarthritis: a longitudinal study over 3.9 years. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2015;23(11):1925–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kortekaas MC, Kwok WY, Reijnierse M, Stijnen T, Kloppenburg M. Brief report: Association of Inflammation with Development of erosions in patients with hand osteoarthritis: a prospective ultrasonography study. Arthritis Care Res. 2016;68(2):392–7.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Cheng T, Zhang G. Worldwide research productivity in the field of rheumatology from 1996 to 2010: a bibliometric analysis. Rheumatology. 2013;52(9):1630–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bakker I, Wevers K, Hoekstra H. Geographical distribution of publications in the scientific field of surgical oncology. J Surg Oncol. 2013;8(108):505–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Luo X, Liang Z, Gong F, Bao H, Huang L, Jia Z. Worldwide productivity in the field of foot and ankle research from 2009–2013: a bibliometric analysis of highly cited journals. J Foot Ankle Res. 2015;8(1):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Dando C, Ellis R, Carroll M, Molyneux P, Gijon-Nogueron G, Siddle HJ, et al. Exploring the use of musculoskeletal ultrasound imaging by podiatrists: an international survey. J Foot Ankle Res. 2021;14(1):39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Ellis R, Helsby J, Naus J, Bassett S, Fernández-de-Las-Peñas C, Carnero SF, et al. Exploring the use of ultrasound imaging by physiotherapists: an international survey. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2020;49:102213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Albano D, Dalili D, Huber FA, Snoj Z, Vieira A, Messina C, et al. Current status of MSK radiology training: an international survey by the European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology (ESSR) young Club. Insights Into Imaging. 2021;12(1):126.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Acedo FJ, Barroso C, Casanueva C, Galán JL. Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: an empirical and network analysis. J Manag Stud. 2006;43(5):957–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Cisneros L, Ibanescu M, Keen C, Lobato-Calleros O, Niebla-Zatarain J. Bibliometric study of family business succession between 1939 and 2017: mapping and analyzing authors’ networks. Scientometrics. 2018;117(2):919–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Tahamtan I, Afshar AS, Ahamdzadeh K. Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics. 2016;107(3):1195–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hudson J. Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. J Econ Perspect. 1996;10(3):153–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Appio FP, Cesaroni F, Di Minin A. Visualizing the structure and bridges of the intellectual property management and strategy literature: a document co-citation analysis. Scientometrics. 2014;101(1):623–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. López-Illescas C, de Moya-Anegón F, Moed HF. The actual citation impact of European oncological research. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(2):228–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ousehal L, El Aouame A, Fatene N, Lazrak L, Traiba L, N’Gom PI. Bibliometric study of articles on skeletal class II malocclusions published in four high impact factor journals. Int Orthod. 2018;16(2):374–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. SCI J. What‘s A Good Impact Factor & Why It Matters (With 2018/2019 Impact Factor Ranking In 27 Categories). 2021 [cited 2021 December 10]. Available from: https://www.scijournal.org/articles/good-impact-factor.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Wang S-Q, Wang J-X, Zhang C, Sun F-H, Xie Y-J, Jiang W, et al. What you should know about osteoarthritis rehabilitation: a Bibliometric analysis of the 50 Most-cited articles. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2020;11:2151459320973196.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Saha S, Saint S, Christakis DA. Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? J Med Libr Assoc. 2003;91(1):42.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. 2006;295(1):90–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ. 1997;314(7079):497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Hoeffel C. Journal impact factors. Allergy. 1998;53(12):1225.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The project is a component of a larger research project funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand. This organisation had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, or in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Clinical Science, Faculty of Health and Environmental Science, Auckland University of Technology, 90 Akoranga Drive, Northcote, New Zealand

    Prue Molyneux, Sarah Stewart, Richard Ellis, Keith Rome & Matthew Carroll

  2. Active Living and Rehabilitation: Aotearoa New Zealand, Health and Rehabilitation Research Institute, School of Clinical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

    Prue Molyneux, Sarah Stewart, Richard Ellis & Matthew Carroll

  3. School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

    Catherine Bowen

  4. Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis Versus Arthritis, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

    Catherine Bowen

Authors
  1. Prue Molyneux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Catherine Bowen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard Ellis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Keith Rome
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthew Carroll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PM, SS, and MC were responsible for the conception and design of the research. PM and SS were responsible for conducting the electronic search, reviewing articles, analysing data, interpreting the results. PM, SS, CB, RE, KR and MC were responsible for the preparation and review of the manuscript prior to submission for publication. PM, SS, CB, RE, KR and MC read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prue Molyneux.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Due to the nature of a bibliometric analysis, no ethical considerations were required.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Professor Catherine Bowen and Professor Keith Rome are the Editors in Chief UK of the Journal of Foot and Ankle Research. It is journal policy that editors are removed from the peer review and editorial decision-making processes for papers they have co-authored. Matthew Carroll and Sarah Stewart are Editorial Board members of the Journal of Foot and Ankle Research. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Molyneux, P., Stewart, S., Bowen, C. et al. A bibliometric analysis of published research employing musculoskeletal imaging modalities to evaluate foot osteoarthritis. J Foot Ankle Res 15, 39 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-022-00549-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-022-00549-0

Keywords

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

ISSN: 1757-1146