Bibliometric analysis of the keratoconus literature

Abstract

Clinical Relevance Clinicians, researchers funding agencies and indeed the general public can benefit from knowledge of the most highly cited papers and most impactful authors, institutions, countries and journals in the field of keratoconus.Background Bibliometrics relating to the keratoconus literature were derived to enable identification of the most impactful papers published, as well as the leading authors, institutions, countries and journals.Methods A search was undertaken of the titles of papers on the Scopus database to identify keratoconus-related articles. The 20 most highly cited papers were determined from the total list of 4,419 papers found. Rank-order lists by count were assembled for the ‘top 20ʹ in each of four categories: authors, institutions, countries and journals. A subject-specific keratoconus-related h-index (hKC-index) was derived for each constituent of each category to serve as a measure of impact in the field. The top 10 constituents of each category were ranked by hKC-index and tabulated for consideration.Results The hKC-index of the keratoconus field is 125. The 4,419 papers have been cited a total of 98,010 times, and 18.5% of these papers have never been cited. The most highly cited paper is a general review of keratoconus by Yaron Rabinowitz, who is also the most impactful author in the field (hKC = 31). The Cedars Sinai Medical Center in the United States produces the most impactful keratoconus-related papers (hKC = 36), and the United States is the most impactful country (hKC = 91). The Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery is the most impactful journal (hKC = 55).Conclusion Keratoconus is a topic of high interest in the clinical and scientific literature. Highly cited papers and impactful authors, institutions, countries and journals are identified.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.