Global research landscapes in orthopaedic and traumatology systematic reviews: A bibliometric analysis of trends, impact, and evolution

Objective: This study aims to explore global research trends, productivity, and thematic evolution in systematic reviews within orthopaedics and traumatology. Methods: Articles indexed in the “Orthopaedics” category of the Web of Science Core Collection were retrieved using the keyword “Review*” and filtered for systematic reviews. Data were processed with Bibliometrix (R) and VOSviewer to assess publication trends, citation impact, prolific authors, leading journals, collaborative networks, and keyword co-occurrence patterns. Results: A total of 3445 articles were identified in 38 journals. The highest number of publications occurred in 2023 (452 articles), with an annual growth rate of 29.2 % and an average of 20.77 citations per article. Nicola Maffulli was the most prolific author, with 48 publications and 32,733 citations in Web of Science. The United States was the most productive country (852 articles), and Sichuan University was the leading institution (123 articles). The most productive journal was the Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research (414 articles). In contrast, Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery had the greatest citation impact with 12,702 citations. The most cited study was “Bone regenerative medicine: classic options, novel strategies, and future directions” by Oryan et al. (2014), with 792 citations. Keywords evolved from “replacement” and “arthroplasty” (2018–2019) to terms like “outcomes”, “risk”, and “efficacy” (2020 onward), reflecting a shift from surgical techniques to patient-centered outcomes. Conclusions: Systematic reviews in orthopaedics and traumatology have grown substantially, reflecting increasing emphasis on evidence-based practice. Research has shifted from technical innovations toward comprehensive approaches prioritizing regenerative therapies, complication management, quality of life, and clinical sustainability. Leading countries, institutions, and journals have played pivotal roles in shaping these trends, though regional disparities highlight the need for greater inclusion of underrepresented areas.