Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Research productivity is an important component of academic advancement, promotion, and funding within orthopaedic subspecialties. Accordingly, bibliometric indicators, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) relative citation ratio, have increasingly been used to quantify citation influence. This study examined the distribution of RCR-based metrics and demographic factors associated with higher citation influence among orthopaedic oncologists in the United States. Methods: Orthopaedic oncologists practicing in the United States were identified through the Members of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society directory. The PubMed iCite database was used to record mean relative citation ratio (mRCR), weighted relative citation ratio (wRCR), and publication counts. Independent variables included sex, MD versus DO degree, PhD status, geographic region of practice, and years since receipt of a National Provider Identifier. Univariable and multivariable ordinary least squares regression analyses were conducted for the two RCR metrics using R to evaluate associations between these metrics and study variables. Results: A total of 195 orthopaedic oncologists were included. The median (interquartile range) wRCR was 28.02 [11.14-64.78], and the median mRCR was 1.13 [0.85-1.42]. In multivariable analysis, years since receiving an NPI (3.427), PhD status (66.1), and practice in the Northeast region (34.5) were independently associated with higher wRCR. No other factors were significantly associated with mRCR. Conclusion: Among US orthopaedic oncologists, cumulative citation influence, as measured by wRCR, was associated with career duration and geographic region, whereas per-article citation influence (mRCR) was relatively uniform across all characteristics. These findings highlight the distinction between cumulative citation and per-publication citation metrics, providing subspecialty-specific benchmarking data for academic orthopaedic oncology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Noori et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: