A
Title: “The 50 Most-cited Articles in Urethral trauma: A Bibliometric Analysis”Authors list:
Department of surgery, College of medicine, King Abdulaziz University ,Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
loujainalsulimani@gmail.com
1-Sami Suliman H. Judeeba
sjudeeba@kau.edu.sa
2-Loujin Mohammed A.Alsulimani
College of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
3-Hajer Ali H.Almutairi
College of Medicine, Qassim University, Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia.
hajeralmu03@gmail.com
4- Hawraa Ali A.Al Ajmi
College of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland .
hawraa3lix@gmail.com
5- Zaid Alaeddin A. Dajani
College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
zaiddajani2001@gmail.com
6-Wed Musaad A.Al Hamili
College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Alhamiliwed@gmail.com
7-Badr Mahmoud M. Ahmed
College of Medicine, Taibah University, Al-Madina, Saudi Arabia.
badrh7889@gmail.com
8-Shahad Abbas A.Alanazi
College of Medicine, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Shahaderw@gmail.com
9-Omar Abdullah M.Al Quraish
College of Medicine, Sulaiman Al-Rajhi University, Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia.
omar5050ksa@gmail.com
Corresponding author:
Loujin Mohammed A.Alsulimani
College of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Email: loujainalsulimani@gmail.com
Phone: +966564072575
A
Conflict of interest:The authors do not have any conflict of interest.
Source of funding:
The authors do not have any conflict of funding to declare.
A
Author contribution:
S.J., as the principal investigator, supervised the study, and contributed to manuscript editing and review.
L.A. designed the study, performed data analysis and extraction, and contributed to manuscript editing and review.
H.M. performed title and abstract screening, full-text assessment, data analysis, and data extraction.
H.A. conducted title and abstract screening, full-text assessment, data acquisition, data analysis and extraction, and manuscript review.
Z.D. carried out the literature search, data analysis and extraction, wrote the discussion, and contributed to manuscript editing.
W.H. wrote the abstract and conclusion.
B.A. downloaded articles, performed data extraction, and contributed to writing the discussion.
S.A. wrote the introduction, performed data extraction and analysis.
O.Q. contributed to data extraction, methods writing, and data analysis.
All authors reviewed the final manuscript.
Abstract
Introduction
Despite being uncommon among genitourinary injuries, urethral trauma is a major urological emergency that may result in long-term issues such as sexual and urinary dysfunction. Improving patient outcomes requires early and efficient management. While numerous studies have examined the causes, diagnosis, and treatment of urethral injuries, no bibliometric analysis has systematically assessed the most influential publications in this field.
This study aimed to identify and evaluate the 50 most-cited articles on urethral trauma to highlight trends, knowledge gaps, and future research directions.
Methods
A thorough literature search using terms like “urethral trauma”and “urethral injury” was carried out in the Web of Science database, including only English language research on human subjects. Four independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts using predefined criteria; conflicts were resolved by a fifth reviewer or senior author. A consistent form was used to gather data on publication details, citation metrics, study design, evidence level, and outcomes. Descriptive statistics summarized study characteristics and citation patterns.
Results
A
The results showed a heavy dependence on observational study designs, including narrative reviews and retrospective and prospective cohort studies. Only one Level 1 study was found, and most papers were classified as Level 4 or 5 evidence. Management and treatment strategies were the dominant focus, with fewer studies addressing complications, diagnosis, or specific populations. The Journal of Urology emerged as the leading source, publishing the most highly cited articles and garnering the most citations overall.Conclusion
A
These findings emphasize the need for greater urethral trauma research, including randomized trials and multicenter investigations. To strengthen the body of evidence and support more thorough clinical guidelines, future research should also include underrepresented subjects, such as complications, long term outcomes, and patient reported parameters.A
A
Introduction
Urethral trauma is defined as violent injury to the urethra [1, 2]. It accounts for approximately 4% among all genitourinary trauma [1, 2]. The emergency treatment of urethral injury is crucial for improving patient outcomes [3], as urethral trauma represents a serious urological emergency with potential for lasting complications, including urinary dysfunction, sexual impairment such as erectile dysfunction, and a significant psychological burden on affected individuals [4]. Although urethral injuries are relatively uncommon compared to other genitourinary injuries, it is frequently encountered in patients with major pelvic trauma, particularly following blunt force or straddle-type mechanisms [5]. The management of urethral injuries is often complex and challenging [4].
Urethral trauma encompasses injuries to both anterior and posterior urethral segments, each differing in etiology, anatomical involvement, and treatment approach. Anterior urethral injuries are most often caused by straddle trauma or iatrogenic instrumentation, while posterior injuries are commonly associated with pelvic fractures from high-energy trauma [6, 7]. Diagnostic modalities such as retrograde urethrography and endoscopic evaluation play a central role in the assessment of urethral injuries, and management may range from catheter realignment to definitive urethroplasty [8]. Despite advances in reconstructive urology, controversies remain regarding optimal surgical techniques, timing of intervention, and long-term outcomes [6].
While various studies have addressed the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of urethral trauma, there is currently no comprehensive bibliometric analysis that identifies the most influential studies in this field. Citation analysis offers a quantitative approach to assess academic impact by measuring how often publications are referenced by others. Highly cited articles often shape clinical practice, inform guidelines, and guide future research directions. However, citation frequency may be influenced by multiple factors unrelated to methodological quality, including journal visibility, author reputation, and article accessibility [9].
Given the lack of bibliometric studies focused on urethral injuries, a systematic evaluation of the most highly cited literature is essential. Such an analysis can provide valuable insights into the evolution of clinical knowledge in this field, highlight gaps in the literature, and serve as a resource for both clinicians and researchers [10].
This study aims to identify and critically evaluate the 50 most cited articles on urethral trauma through bibliometric analysis. By examining citation patterns, methodological characteristics, and research themes, this work intends to illuminate the most influential studies in the field and guide future research directions.
Methods & Materials
1.1 Search Strategy:
The Web of Science database will be used to conduct a thorough literature search using specific keywords. such as "urethral trauma" and "urethral injury." No restrictions will be applied regarding the year of publication to ensure an exhaustive inclusion of relevant studies. Only English-language articles specifically addressing urethral trauma procedures in human subjects will be considered. While many studies may be retrieved initially, priority will be given to those with a high citation count, as this may indicate scientific impact. Following the application of the search strategy, studies will be organized according to citation frequency.
1.2 Study Selection:
Four independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts of the retrieved publications based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible studies must be in English, focus on urethral trauma interventions in humans, and include references to other studies. Any disagreements during the title and abstract screening will be resolved by a fifth reviewer. Full-text screening of selected articles will follow the same process, with unresolved conflicts referred to the senior author for final adjudication.
1.3 Data Extraction and Management:
Data will be extracted independently by four reviewers using a standardized extraction form to ensure consistency. Extracted variables will include: first author, article type, publication year, total citation count, average citations per year (calculated by dividing the total number of citations by [2025 – publication year]), the surgical approach used, sample size, mean patient age, study location, country/region of origin, journal name, journal impact factor (IF), level of evidence, and primary outcomes. All data discrepancies will be resolved by consensus among the reviewers or, if necessary, by involving a fifth reviewer.
1.4 Treatment of Missing Data:
In cases where essential data are missing or unclear, respective authors will be contacted for clarification. If no response is received, the missing data will be noted, and the potential impact of such gaps will be addressed in the final analysis.
1.5 Statistical Analysis:
The distinctive characteristics of the included studies will be summed up using descriptive statistics. Continuous variables (e.g., patient age, citation counts) will be reported as means, medians, and ranges. Categorical variables (e.g., study design, primary outcomes) will be described using frequency distributions. Trends in research impact will be assessed by evaluating citation patterns over time. Although no formal risk-of-bias assessment will be conducted, all included articles will undergo qualitative evaluation for methodological rigor and relevance to the field of urethral trauma.
Data Analysis and Results
A
Fig. 1
Summary Flowchart of the Methodology
The process commences with an extensive Database Search, which initially identified 8790 records. These records were then Ranked by Total Citations to prioritize the most frequently cited works.The core of the methodology involves two distinct Screening Stages. In Screening Stage 1, the top 100 papers (based on citation ranking) underwent Full-text Assessment for Eligibility. Concurrently, a significant number of papers (n = 137) were Excluded based on predefined criteria such as irrelevance to urethral injuries, inappropriate study types (e.g., abstracts, letters), or language (non-English). Following this, Screening Stage 2 processed papers ranked 101–200, with a subsequent Full-text Assessment for Eligibility for this subset.
After both screening stages, the eligible papers were once again Ranked by Total Citations. The methodology then specified the Inclusion of the 50 most-cited papers, while papers not ranking in the top 50 (n = 13) were Excluded. Finally, for the 50 included papers, detailed Data Extraction was performed. This encompassed a wide range of bibliometric and study-specific information, including paper title, authors, publication year, journal, total and average citations per year, study setting, funding status, study design, level of evidence, main subject, and the types of outcome measures utilized (clinical, cosmetic, patient-reported).
A
Fig. 2
Study designs of the 50 most cited articles on urethral injury
A bibliometric analysis of the top 50 most-cited articles on urethral injury reveals a predominant reliance on observational study designs. Retrospective cohort studies were the most frequently encountered, comprising 11 of the 50 articles, followed closely by prospective cohort studies (n = 9). Review articles, including both general reviews and narrative reviews, collectively accounted for a substantial portion of the literature (n = 14), highlighting the importance of syntheses in this highly cited body of work. Retrospective observational studies also contributed significantly with 6 articles. Less frequent designs included case series (n = 3) and systematic reviews (n = 3). Notably, higher levels of evidence, such as randomized controlled trials and case reports, were relatively scarce among the top 50, each represented by only one article, and expert opinion articles by two. This distribution indicates that the most impactful research in urethral injury largely stems from observational data and comprehensive literature reviews.
A
Fig. 3
Level of Evidence of the 50 Most Cited Articles
The bibliometric review of the top 50 cited articles pertaining to urethral injury demonstrates a notable dearth of high-quality evidence. As shown in the visual representation, the vast majority of these influential papers fall within the lower echelons of evidence, with Level 4 studies being most numerous (20 articles) and Level 5 studies also prominent (14 articles). Despite the presence of 11 Level 2 and 4 Level 3 articles, only a single Level 1 study, signifying the strongest form of evidence, was identified among the highly cited works. This pattern points to a fundamental weakness in the evidentiary foundation of leading research on urethral injury, necessitating a shift towards more rigorous research methodologies.
A
Fig. 4
The Count of Articles Published in Each Decade Among the 50 Most Cited Articles
In terms of publication chronology, the 50 most-cited articles on urethral injury are predominantly concentrated in recent decades. The 2000s alone produced 19 of these seminal works, making it the most impactful decade. The 1990s and 2010s followed with 12 and 11 articles, respectively, illustrating a consistent output of highly referenced research across these three periods. Conversely, articles published prior to the 1980s and during the 1980s itself comprise a much smaller proportion, with 3 and 5 highly cited papers, respectively, indicating a shift towards greater research density in the latter part of the 20th and early 21st centuries.
Journal | Impact Factor (Approx. Year) | Number of Publications |
|---|---|---|
Journal of Urology | 7.450 | 20 |
Urology | 2.649 | 7 |
The Journal of Urology | 7.450 | 4 |
European Urology | 24.344 | 3 |
Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection, and Critical Care | 0.19 | 2 |
Urologic Clinics of North America | 2.4 | 2 |
BJU International | 3.7 | 2 |
Radiographics | 5.2 | 1 |
British Journal of Urology | 3.7 | 1 |
International Journal of the Care of the Injured | 2.200 | 1 |
Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery | 1.7 | 1 |
Radiology | 12.1 | 1 |
Sexual Medicine Reviews | 3.6 | 1 |
Translational Andrology and Urology | 1.9 | 1 |
British Journal of Surgery | 8.7 | 1 |
American Journal of Roentgenology | 4.7 | 1 |
Analysis of the journal distribution for the 50 most-cited articles on urethral injury reveals a high concentration of influential publications within a few key journals. The Journal of Urology stands out as the predominant publishing venue, accounting for 20 (40%) of the articles. Urology was the next most frequent source with 7 publications, followed by The Journal of Urology (4 articles) and European Urology (3 articles). Several journals, including Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, Urologic Clinics of North America, and BJU International, each contributed 2 articles. The remaining 8 journals, such as Radiographics, British Journal of Urology, and Sexual Medicine Reviews, each published only one of the top 50 most-cited articles. This distribution indicates that a significant portion of highly impactful research on urethral injury is concentrated in specialized urology journals, particularly the Journal of Urology.
A
Fig. 5
Total Citation Per Journal
The total citations accumulated by journals publishing the 50 most-cited articles on urethral injury reveal a pronounced disproportionality in influence. The Journal of Urology alone accounts for an overwhelming 2942 citations, establishing it as the preeminent source of highly impactful research in this domain. While European Urology (842 citations) and Urology (685 citations) follow as distant, yet significant, contributors, and others like BJU International (430 citations) also feature, the remaining journals collectively contribute a relatively minor share of the overall citation count, underscoring the centralized nature of highly recognized scholarship within a select few specialized urological publications.
Category | Number of Articles |
|---|---|
Management Strategies & Treatment | 16 |
Diagnosis & Imaging | 7 |
Etiology & Epidemiology | 7 |
Complications & Functional Outcomes | 3 |
Classification & Pathophysiology | 3 |
Special Populations | 3 |
Reviews & Overviews | 3 |
Undetermined/Mixed Focus | 8 |
A content analysis of the 50 most-cited articles on urethral injury reveals that Management Strategies & Treatment constituted the predominant research focus, encompassing 16 (32%) of the articles. Diagnosis & Imaging and Etiology & Epidemiology were equally represented, each accounting for 7 (14%) articles. Topics related to Complications & Functional Outcomes and Classification & Pathophysiology each comprised 3 (6%) articles, a count shared by Special Populations and Reviews & Overviews. Notably, 8 (16%) of the articles were classified under Undetermined/Mixed Focus, indicating a broad or equally weighted primary topic within those highly cited works. This distribution highlights a strong emphasis in the seminal literature on how to manage and treat urethral injuries, alongside significant attention to their diagnosis, causes, and consequences.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this study presents the first bibliometric review of urethral trauma literature, revealing several notable trends. The most-cited articles in urethral injury are overwhelmingly observational in nature, dominated by retrospective and prospective cohort studies, case series, and narrative reviews. High-level evidence remains exceptionally scarce – only a single randomized controlled trial was identified among the top 50, alongside just three systematic reviews. Correspondingly, the levels of evidence skew low: the majority of influential papers were Level IV (20 articles) or Level V (14 articles), with only 11 at Level II, 4 at Level III, and just one reaching Level I. In practical terms, none of the most-cited works achieved the highest evidentiary standard, underscoring a persistent reliance on lower-quality study designs. Despite this methodological weakness, these papers have shaped the field – a testament to the clinical importance of their topics and the realities of research in traumatic injuries.
Another clear trend is the chronological concentration of high-impact research in recent decades. The 2000s produced the largest share of top-cited articles (19 of 50), followed by the 1990s (12 articles) and 2010s (11). In contrast, very few top-cited studies date before the 1980s (only 3 before 1980, and 5 in the 1980s). This shift suggests that urethral trauma emerged as an active research focus in the late 20th century and early 21st, likely spurred by advances in trauma care and reconstruction techniques during that period. It also reflects the citation advantage of time – seminal papers from the 1990s and 2000s have had two to three decades to accumulate influence, whereas more recent contributions are underrepresented due to insufficient time to garner citations.
These findings mirror patterns observed in other surgical and trauma bibliometric analyses. Low evidence levels among top-cited works are not unique to urethral trauma; many surgical subfields similarly rely on observational research. For instance, a comprehensive analysis of plastic surgery literature found that most studies were of low-to-moderate quality, attributable to suboptimal study designs [11]. The inherent barriers to conducting randomized trials in surgical specialties are well recognized [12]. The present review confirms that urethral trauma is no exception. Even within general trauma research, high-impact papers are often not Level I evidence [13]. Urethral injury research appears to lag even further – with the majority of top studies at Level IV–V, the evidentiary gap is pronounced. This aligns with prior bibliometric studies in urethral reconstruction, which reported that almost half of the most-cited works were case series or expert opinion [14].
Challenges in improving evidence quality are numerous. The dearth of Level I evidence in urethral trauma reflects the ethical and logistical barriers inherent to conducting high-quality trials in acute trauma settings. Randomizing patients in emergent, life-threatening scenarios or withholding standard interventions raises concerns [15]. Furthermore, urethral trauma is relatively uncommon and highly heterogeneous, limiting the feasibility of adequately powered, multicenter RCTs. As in aesthetic and reconstructive surgery, even systematic reviews often suffer from heterogeneity in patient populations and outcome definitions, hindering pooled analyses [16]. Additionally, validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are infrequently used in the urethral trauma literature, which limits inter-study comparability and may result in discordance between surgeon-assessed and patient-perceived outcomes [17].
Our analysis also reveals an imbalance in research topics. By far the most common theme among top-cited papers was management strategies and treatment (32%), followed by diagnosis/imaging and etiology/epidemiology (each 14%). These focus areas are understandable given the clinical imperative to treat acute injuries effectively. However, important domains such as complications, functional outcomes, and special populations remain underrepresented, each accounting for just 6% of the top 50 articles. Female and pediatric urethral trauma, for instance, remain relatively understudied in high-impact literature despite their unique management challenges [18]. This suggests a critical need for future studies to address long-term patient outcomes, psychosocial impact, and underrepresented populations.
Journal distribution analysis highlights that high-impact urethral trauma research is heavily concentrated in urology-specific journals. The Journal of Urology alone accounted for 40% of the top 50 articles and over 2,900 citations, confirming its central role in shaping the field. Other major contributors included Urology and European Urology, while general trauma or radiology journals were comparatively underrepresented. This aligns with prior bibliometric studies in urology that noted similar publication and citation patterns [19]. Geographically, the dominance of U.S.-based authors and institutions is consistent with previous findings across surgical disciplines [20]. This likely reflects greater access to research funding, academic networks, and clinical volume at major U.S. trauma centers.
Despite the valuable insights gained, several limitations must be acknowledged. Citation count does not equate to methodological quality or clinical importance. Popularity may result from factors such as author prestige, journal visibility, or topic novelty, rather than research rigor. Citation bias, national bias, and self-citation may all distort true impact [21]. Additionally, our analysis inherently favors older publications, which have had more time to accumulate citations. Consequently, emerging high-quality research may be underrepresented. Bibliometric studies also do not capture the context of citations – whether they are positive endorsements or critical rebuttals – nor can they account for clinical practice adoption. These limitations notwithstanding, this study provides a valuable overview of the foundational literature in urethral trauma and highlights key areas for future research.
In summary, the most-cited articles in urethral trauma provide critical insights into management strategies and diagnostic approaches, but reveal a field still developing in terms of evidence quality and research breadth. Greater use of standardized outcomes, PROMs, and multicenter collaborations will be essential to elevate the field. As with other surgical subspecialties, innovative trial designs and pragmatic research strategies may be necessary to overcome methodological barriers. Future work should focus on addressing long-term outcomes, underrepresented patient groups, and comparative effectiveness to ensure that urethral trauma management continues to evolve based on robust, patient-centered evidence.
Conclusion
This bibliometric analysis provides valuable insight into the current research on urethral injury. It shows that most of the highly cited studies rely on observational designs and are published in a small group of specialized urology journals. The top 50 most cited articles are primarily retrospective and prospective cohort studies and narrative reviews. Fewer studies addressed diagnosis, complications, or causes, and most articles focused on management strategies, falling under Level 4 or Level 5 evidence.
Many of the influential articles, especially those from The Journal of Urology, were released after the 1990s. Despite urethral injury being the main focus of this review, it highlights a larger problem in urological research which is a heavy reliance on lower-quality evidence.This raises concerns about the strength of current clinical practices and guidelines by summarizing key study types, topics, and evidence gaps, this review helps guide future researchers in building stronger and more relevant studies.
Better-quality research is required going forward, and this can be achieved through larger multi-center collaborations, randomized trials, and a greater inclusion of patient reported outcomes. Underrepresented subjects like complications, special populations, and long-term outcomes should also be covered in future research. To advance the field, researchers should aim for higher methodological quality, more balanced topic coverage, and broader journal representation
A
References
1.
Martínez-Piñeiro L, Djakovic N, Plas E, Mor Y, Santucci RA, Serafetinidis E et al (2010) EAU Guidelines on Urethral Trauma. Eur Urol 57(5):791–803. 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.01.013
2.
Morey AF, Brandes S, Dugi DD, Armstrong JH, Breyer BN, Broghammer JA et al (2014) Urotrauma: AUA Guideline. J Urol 192(2):327–335. 10.1016/j.juro.2014.05.004
3.
Zhang Y, Zhang K, Fu Q (2017) Emergency treatment of male blunt urethral trauma in China: Outcome of different methods in comparison with other countries. Asian J Urol 5(2):78–87. 10.1016/j.ajur.2017.04.004
4.
Leslie SW, Nelson Q, Baker J Urethral injury. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 [cited 2025 Jun 29]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554575/
5.
Tullington JE, Blecker N Lower genitourinary trauma. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 [cited 2025 Jun 29]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557527/
6.
Koraitim MM (1996) Pelvic fracture urethral injuries: evaluation of various methods of management. J Urol 156(4):1288–1291. 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65571-X
7.
Chapple C, Barbagli G, Jordan G, Mundy AR, Rodrigues-Netto N, Pansadoro V et al (2004) Consensus statement on urethral trauma. BJU Int 93(9):1195–1202. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.04805.x
8.
Patterson DE, Barrett DM, Myers RP, DeWeerd JH, Hall BB, Benson RC (1983) Primary realignment of posterior urethral injuries. J Urol 129(3):513–515. 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)52209-0
9.
Bornmann L, Daniel HD (2008) What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. J Doc 64(1):45–80. 10.1108/00220410810844150
10.
Zeng N, Liu M, Zhong X, Wang S, Xia Q (2024) Knowledge mapping of telemedicine in urology in the past 20 years: A bibliometric analysis (2004–2024). Digit Health 10:20552076241287460. 10.1177/20552076241287460
11.
Khajuria A, Charles WN, Dutt A, Hoyos A (2021) The 100 most–cited articles in abdominoplasty: a bibliometric analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 9(3):e3426. 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003426PMID:33786256
12.
Hemmingsen MN, Lau A, Larsen A, Ørholt M (2023) The role of bibliometric analyses in plastic surgery–advantages and disadvantages. Gland Surg 12(7):873–874. 10.21037/gs-23-199PMID:37727343
13.
He L, Wang X, Li C, Wan Y, Fang H (2020) The 100 most–cited articles in urological surgery: a bibliometric analysis. Int J Surg. ;75:74–79. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.12.030. PMID:31926329
14.
O’Kelly F, Nason GJ, McLoughlin LC, Flood HD, Thornhill JA (2015) A comparative bibliometric analysis of the top 150 cited papers in hypospadiology (1945–2013). J Pediatr Urol 11(2):85e1–e11 PMID:25819379
15.
Barbagli G, Lazzeri M (2006) Urethral reconstruction. Curr Opin Urol 16(6):391–395. 10.1097/01.mou.0000250277.44990.abPMID:17053517
16.
Dhua AK, Sinha RJ, Chakraborty MM et al (2022) Publication landscape of posterior urethral valve–a scientometric study. J Pediatr Urol 18(5):650–660. 10.1016/j.jpurol.2022.08.020PMID:36167650
17.
Antezana LA, Kreutz-Rodrigues L, Shapiro D et al (2024) Most cited articles in body contouring: a bibliometric analysis of the past 45 years. Plast Surg (Oakv) 32(2):265–275. 10.1177/22925503221120574PMID:38681248
18.
Su D, Li X, Li S, Wang K, Wu G, Zhai G (2025) Bibliometric analysis of hypospadias from 1998–2023. Front Surg. 10.3389/fsurg.2025.1511055
19.
He L, Liu YH, Wang SQ et al (2016) Hundred top–cited articles related to acute kidney injury: a bibliometric analysis. BMJ Open 6(7):e011630. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011630PMID:27466238
20.
Seu MY, Nguyen VT, Chouairi F et al (2023) Nationwide bibliometric analysis of integrated plastic surgery program directors. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 11(1):e4711. 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004711PMID:36699234
21.
Garfield E (2006) The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. ;295(1):90–93. 10.1001/jama.295.1.90. PMID:16391221