Abstract Background Bibliometric analyses are increasingly used to explore how scientific knowledge is created, disseminated, and perceived. In orthopaedics, research output has expanded rapidly over the past decade, yet the factors determining whether an article achieves wide visibility and scholarly impact remain poorly understood. Beyond the inherent quality of a study, elements such as authorship patterns, title construction, and open access (OA) availability may play an essential role in shaping citation performance. However, evidence in this field is still limited and sometimes contradictory, highlighting the need for large-scale, field-specific analyses. Methods Orthopaedic publications from 2010 to 2020 were identified in Scopus using the keyword ‘orthopaedic’. After duplicate removal, 97,806 unique articles were included with complete data on authorship, titles, citation counts, study design, and OA status. Citation rates were normalised per year since publication. Associations between bibliographic features and citation performance were assessed using multiple linear regression, while differences across title styles and study designs were evaluated with comparative statistical testing. Exploratory modelling was performed to identify combinations of authorship and title characteristics linked to the highest predicted citation rates. Results Larger author teams were associated with higher citation rates ( β = 0.108 citations/year per additional author, 95% confidence interval CI 0.103–0.114, p < 0.001). OA articles achieved a mean increase of 0.175 citations/year compared with non-OA ( p = 0.001). Title length in characters correlated positively with citation rate ( β = 0.023 per character, p < 0.001), whereas title length in words showed a negative association ( β = −0.183 per word, p < 0.001). The presence of a colon (+0.314 citations/year, p < 0.001) or dash (+0.187, p = 0.001) increased citation performance, while question marks (−0.476, p < 0.001) and all-capital titles (mean 0.71 citations/year) reduced it. Regarding study design, network meta-analyses achieved the highest citation rate (mean 6.64 citations/year), followed by systematic reviews (5.66), meta-analyses (5.08) and narrative reviews (4.81). Randomised controlled trials (3.90) and clinical trials (3.86) performed at an intermediate level, whereas observational studies (2.40), case series (1.79), technical notes (1.33), case reports (0.77), editorials (0.51) and commentaries (0.25) showed consistently lower citation performance ( p < 0.0001). Conclusions In orthopaedic research, collaboration, OA availability and concise, well-structured titles with selected punctuation contribute to higher citation performance, while unconventional title formatting reduces visibility. Although useful for optimising dissemination, ethical authorship practices and rigorous scientific standards remain more critical than citation metrics.
Migliorini et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: