Differences in productivity and collaboration patterns on spine-related research between neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons: Bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Spinal surgeries are commonly performed by neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons, with many spine-related articles published by them. However, there has been limited research that directly compares their research achievements. This article conducted a comparative analysis of spine-related research achievements between neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons. This study examines differences in productivity and impact on spine-related research between them using these measures, particularly with a novel clustering algorithm. METHODS: We gathered 2148 articles written by neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons from the Web of Science core collections, covering the period from 2013 to 2022. To analyze author collaborations, we employed the follower-leader clustering algorithm (FLCA) and conducted cluster analysis. A 3-part analysis was carried out: cluster analysis of author collaborations; mean citation analysis; and a category, journal, authorship, L-index (CJAL) score based on article category, journal impact factors, authorships, and L-indices. We then utilized R to create visual displays of our findings, including circle bar charts, heatmaps with dendrograms, 4-quadrant radar plots, and forest plots. The mean citations and CJAL scores were compared between neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons. RESULTS: When considering first and corresponding authors, orthopedics authors wrote a greater proportion of the articles in the article collections, accounting for 75% (1600 out of 2148). The CJAL score based on the top 10 units each also favored orthopedic spine surgeons, with 71% (3626 out of 6139) of the total score attributed to them. Using the FLCA, we observed that orthopedic spine surgeons tended to have more collaborations across countries. Additionally, while citation per article favored orthopedic spine surgeons with standard mean difference (= -0.66) and 95%CI: -0.76, -0.56, the mean CJAL score in difference (= 0.34) favored neurosurgeons with 95%CI: 0.24 0.44. CONCLUSION: Orthopedic spine surgeons have a higher number of publications, citations, and CJAL scores in spine research than those in neurosurgeons. Orthopedic spine surgeons tend to have more collaborations and coauthored papers in the field. The study highlights the differences in research productivity and collaboration patterns between the 2 authors in spine research and sheds light on potential contributing factors. The study recommends the use of FLCA for future bibliographical studies.

Production of Modified Autologous Conditioned Serum and Ex Vivo Assessment of Its Healing Potential in Murine Corneal Epithelium.

Human blood-derived topical therapies have been a boon to clinicians in recent decades. Autologous serum (AS) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) are enriched in epitheliotropic growth factors that are essential in corneal wound healing. Unlike AS, PRP is based on a differential centrifugation system, yielding more platelet-derived growth factors. Autologous conditioned serum (ACS) not only preserves the preparation of AS and PRP, but also focuses on immune-modulating properties, which are important in inflammatory diseases. The lack of standardized protocols and high preparation costs are limitations for the clinical application of ACS. This video experiment demonstrates a standard operating procedure for preparing modified autologous conditioned serum (mACS) eye drops. First, glycerol was added into heparin syringes as the blood cell stabilizer during hypoxic incubation. To activate the blood cells, a 4 h incubation at 37 °C was initiated. Then, the blood samples were centrifuged at 3,500 × g for 10 min at room temperature. After filtration of the supernatant through a 0.22 µm filter, the mACS eye drops were fully prepared. A tentative try-out of the therapeutic effect of mACS showed that it may have competitive advantages over conventional AS in the corneal wound healing in ex vivo mouse eyes. The AS used in this study was prepared according to published studies and the clinical practice in our hospital. Therefore, the efficacy of mACS on ocular surface diseases could be evaluated in future research through in vivo animal studies and clinical trials.