The top 100 classic papers on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the past 25 years: a bibliometric analysis of the orthopaedic literature

Study designBibliometric analysis.ObjectivesTo identify the 100 most cited orthopedic papers in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) over the past 25 years and characterize them by study type, topic, and country and assess study quality (design, level of evidence, and impact factor) to provide an updated account of the most impactful AIS evidence.Summary of background dataAIS represents a three-dimensional deformity that drives a significant number of investigations. Although available evidence continues to grow, recent impactful studies pertaining to AIS have not been identified; their quality has not been thoroughly assessed.MethodsWeb of Science was reviewed to identify the top 1000 cited AIS studies published from 1992 to 2017. Articles were organized by number of citations. Titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion/relevance, and the top 100 articles by citation count were identified, and study and publication characteristics were extracted.ResultsAmong the top 100 articles, 42 were cited >= 100 times. Mean number of authors and citations of these studies was 5.6 and 118.3, respectively. Study types were predominantly retrospective (n=53), followed by prospective (n=18), cross-sectional (n=13), and systematic review/meta-analysis (n=7). Topics covered in these studies included clinical/patient outcomes (n=47), methodology/validation (n=22), basic science (n=15), radiographic analyses (n=12), and gait/biomechanics (n=4). Most studies originated in the United States of America (n=65) and were published in Spine (n=76), with 8266 total citations. Most studies were of Level III (n=55) or Level II (n=23) evidence. Mean impact factor was 3.47.ConclusionsDespite recent studies' shorter time frames for impact, citations of AIS research have progressively increased during the past 25 years. The top 100 cited orthopedic studies were predominantly Level III, retrospective, nonrandomized studies, and therefore, were subject to biases. The low proportion of prospective studies (18%) reflects an area of future improvement, underscoring the need for higher-quality studies to support our practice.Level of evidenceN/A.