The journal of sexual medicine · 2026
The contemporary academic landscape of penile prosthesis surgery: a bibliometric analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
George Michael, Moukhtar Hammad Muhammed A, Mubarak Mohamed, Huang Tiffany, Chawareb Elia Abou, Mahdi Mohamed, Simhan Jay, Yafi Faysal A, Stasinou Theodora, Pearce Ian, Gross Martin S, Modgil Vaibhav
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Penile prosthesis surgery (PPS) has advanced significantly over the past decade with a wealth of research published, yet the key studies shaping contemporary clinical practice remain unclear.
AIM: To identify and analyze the 50 most-cited primary research articles on PPS, published between 2014 and 2024, examining bibliometric characteristics, authorship networks, and thematic trends.
METHODS: A bibliometric analysis using the Web of Science Core Collection identified the most-cited PPS research articles within the study period. Data were extracted, stored, and analyzed using Microsoft Excel. VOSviewer (v1.8) generated authorship networks and keyword co-occurrence maps to visualize collaborations and thematic clusters.
OUTCOMES: Bibliometric data on authorship, year, journal, study design, level of evidence, and keywords were extracted, stored, and analyzed.
RESULTS: The 50 most-cited articles accrued 2283 citations (median 39). The most-cited study, by MS Gross, received 128 citations. MS Gross also authored the most first author publications (n = 3). Most studies were observational in nature. Over half were published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine (n = 26), followed by The Journal of Urology (n = 7), Urology (n = 5), and BJU International (n = 5). Thematic analysis identified dominant focuses: surgical outcomes (n = 27), complications (n = 26), devices (n = 17), infection (n = 16), special populations such as transgender or post-radical prostatectomy patients (n = 12), surgical techniques (n = 12), and predictors/risk factors (n = 7).
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This bibliometric analysis identifies the research domains shaping contemporary PPS, while highlighting a predominance of retrospective, U.S.-centered evidence and the need for future international, coordinated, prospective multicenter research to advance the field.
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study benefits from a transparent methodology and validated bibliometric tools. Limitations include the use of a single database, reliance on citation metrics, dominance of high-volume centers, and the absence of altmetric analysis, which may restrict assessment of quality, generalizability, and contemporary research impact.
CONCLUSIONS: This bibliometric analysis highlights the most influential PPS publications over the past decade. A concentration of output from U.S.-based authors and high-volume centers, as well as a tendency toward observational designs, underscores the current research landscape. Future work with thematic and geographic diversity as well as prospective and multicenter studies may further advance the field.
AIM: To identify and analyze the 50 most-cited primary research articles on PPS, published between 2014 and 2024, examining bibliometric characteristics, authorship networks, and thematic trends.
METHODS: A bibliometric analysis using the Web of Science Core Collection identified the most-cited PPS research articles within the study period. Data were extracted, stored, and analyzed using Microsoft Excel. VOSviewer (v1.8) generated authorship networks and keyword co-occurrence maps to visualize collaborations and thematic clusters.
OUTCOMES: Bibliometric data on authorship, year, journal, study design, level of evidence, and keywords were extracted, stored, and analyzed.
RESULTS: The 50 most-cited articles accrued 2283 citations (median 39). The most-cited study, by MS Gross, received 128 citations. MS Gross also authored the most first author publications (n = 3). Most studies were observational in nature. Over half were published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine (n = 26), followed by The Journal of Urology (n = 7), Urology (n = 5), and BJU International (n = 5). Thematic analysis identified dominant focuses: surgical outcomes (n = 27), complications (n = 26), devices (n = 17), infection (n = 16), special populations such as transgender or post-radical prostatectomy patients (n = 12), surgical techniques (n = 12), and predictors/risk factors (n = 7).
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This bibliometric analysis identifies the research domains shaping contemporary PPS, while highlighting a predominance of retrospective, U.S.-centered evidence and the need for future international, coordinated, prospective multicenter research to advance the field.
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study benefits from a transparent methodology and validated bibliometric tools. Limitations include the use of a single database, reliance on citation metrics, dominance of high-volume centers, and the absence of altmetric analysis, which may restrict assessment of quality, generalizability, and contemporary research impact.
CONCLUSIONS: This bibliometric analysis highlights the most influential PPS publications over the past decade. A concentration of output from U.S.-based authors and high-volume centers, as well as a tendency toward observational designs, underscores the current research landscape. Future work with thematic and geographic diversity as well as prospective and multicenter studies may further advance the field.