metricas
covid
Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología What is the validity of a curve of recent publications in PubMed as an argument...
Información de la revista
Vol. 69. Núm. 6.
Páginas T672-T673 (Noviembre - Diciembre 2025)
Visitas
324
Vol. 69. Núm. 6.
Páginas T672-T673 (Noviembre - Diciembre 2025)
Letter to the Editor
Acceso a texto completo
What is the validity of a curve of recent publications in PubMed as an argument that we are facing a current topic?
¿Cuál es la validez de una curva reciente de publicaciones en PubMed como argumento de que estamos ante un tema en auge?
Visitas
324
M. Fa-Binefaa,b,c,
Autor para correspondencia
drfabinefa@gmail.com

Corresponding author.
, S. López-Hervásb,c
a Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
b Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
c Instituto de Investigación Biomédica Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain
Contenido relacionado
M. Fa-Binefa, S. López-Hervás
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
Texto completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Figuras (1)
Tablas (1)
Table 1. Absolute annual number of publications in PubMed for each term and its percentage growth compared to the year 2000.
Tablas
Texto completo

The use of evolutionary graphs of PubMed publications in recent years on a topic of interest is a common sight in many session presentations, courses, and conferences in our field. This graph is often used to identify a topic as “trendy,” “on the rise,” or “of increasing interest.” It is atypical to display this graph with a flat or downward curve. The purpose of this letter is to question the use of this type of graph and provide a critical perspective on its interpretation.

The publication of articles in electronic databases has grown exponentially in recent years,1 primarily due to the introduction of new journals and electronic supplements to existing journals.

To analyse this situation, a PubMed search was conducted on November 16, 2023, for four MeSH terms representative of our specialty: “Fracture,” “Orthopaedics,” “Traumatology,” and “Bone.” Searches were conducted for different years (Table 1), and a graphical representation and calculation of variability between different time points were performed (Fig. 1).

Table 1.

Absolute annual number of publications in PubMed for each term and its percentage growth compared to the year 2000.

  Year
  2000  2005  2010  2015  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022 
Fracture
No. of publications  4.911  7.153  10.583  14.644  15.508  16.676  19.135  20.967  20.826 
% growth    +46%  +115%  +198%  +216%  +240%  +290%  +327%  +324% 
Orthopaedics
No. of publications  5.938  8.956  13.800  28.374  35.188  38.094  45.856  50.386  51.070 
% growth    +51%  +132%  +378%  +493%  +542%  +672%  +749%  +760% 
Traumatology
No. of publications  409  841  1.336  3.275  3.514  3.927  4.939  5.860  5.831 
% growth    106%  227%  701%  759%  860%  1108%  1333%  1326% 
Bone
No. of publications  23.887  31.945  43.985  55.297  57.073  59.290  64.917  68.375  64.063 
% growth    34%  84%  131%  139%  148%  172%  186%  168% 
Media  0%  59%  140%  352%  402%  447%  560%  649%  644% 
Figure 1.

Graph of the percentage of publications in PubMed for each of the terms compared to the initial year.

The number of publications in our field has increased sixfold (644%) over the last 20 years, with an almost exponential upward trend. The average annual increase in the number of publications is 30%, reaching up to 100% in the last five years.

In this context, any PubMed publication curve with a positive slope, despite representing an increase in the absolute number of publications, could represent a topic that is not in vogue compared to the rest, or even a topic with decreasing interest. For this reason, interpretation of this type of data should be performed with caution, evaluating the numbers in relation to the total number of articles published at the time of the analysis.

Level of evidence

Level of evidence V.

Ethical considerations

There is no animal, human, or patient data in this work. Approval by an ethics committee is not required, provided a letter to the editor is submitted.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grants from public sector agencies, the commercial sector, or non-profit organisations.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no conflicts of interest for the preparation of this article.

Reference
[1]
L. Bornmann, R. Mutz.
Growth rates of modern science: a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references.
J Assn Inf Sci Tec, 66 (2015), pp. 2215-2222
Copyright © 2024. SECOT
Descargar PDF
Opciones de artículo
Herramientas