<- Back to digest

JOA - 2026-05-19 - Journal Article

From Consensus to Everyday Clinical Practice: Quantifying the Knowledge Translation of the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection.

Parsa A, Sargolzaeimoghaddam M, Sargolzaeimoghaddam M, Rouk T, Corces A, Mont M, Parvizi J

bibliometricLOE Vn = 71 manuscripts, 2,881 total citations7 years post-publication (2018–2025)

Topics

arthroplasty
PMID: 42162749DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2026.04.048View on PubMed ->

Key Takeaway

Hip and Knee articles from the 2018 ICM on Musculoskeletal Infection captured 50.2% of 2,881 total citations, while Foot and Ankle articles captured only 0.2%, demonstrating extreme subspecialty disparity in knowledge translation.

Summary Depth

Choose how much analysis to show on this article page.

Summary

This bibliometric study quantified the academic impact of all 71 manuscripts produced by the 2018 ICM on Musculoskeletal Infection by analyzing citation counts and bibliometric mapping across six subspecialty categories. Hip and Knee (50.2%) and General Assembly (39.3%) dominated citations, with the five most cited articles all originating from these two subgroups. Spine (1.3%) and Foot and Ankle (0.2%) subspecialties showed negligible scholarly uptake, indicating that ICM recommendations have not achieved uniform penetration across musculoskeletal subspecialties.

Key Limitation

Citation frequency measures academic dissemination, not actual clinical behavior change or patient outcome improvement, so high citation counts in Hip and Knee may reflect ongoing debate rather than consensus adoption.

Original Abstract

BACKGROUND

Experts from all over the world came together at the 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) on Musculoskeletal Infection to discuss important issues in the identification, management, and avoidance of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) and associated musculoskeletal infections. With the goal of harmonizing global approaches, guiding clinical practice, and standardizing definitions, the proceedings produced 71 manuscripts published in various orthopaedic subspecialties. Despite the widespread dissemination of the ICM 2018 proceedings, their scholarly influence has not been systematically quantified.

METHODS

This bibliometric study evaluates the academic impact of these publications over the past seven years through an analysis of citation patterns. Each of the 71 manuscripts was categorized into six subspecialties: Hip and Knee, General Assembly, Shoulder, Trauma/Sports/Oncology/Pediatric, Spine, and Foot and Ankle. Citation counts were used as a proxy for academic influence. We went a step further than counting citations. We used bibliometric mapping to see which ICM 2018 recommendation areas resonated most with the global community.

RESULTS

Our analysis of 2,881 total citations revealed marked heterogeneity across subspecialties. Hip and Knee articles generated 50.2% of all citations, followed by General Assembly (39.3%), Shoulder (5.2%), Trauma/Sports/Oncology/Pediatric (4.0%), Spine (1.3%), and Foot and Ankle (0.2%). The five most influential articles-all from Hip and Knee or General Assembly subgroups-accounted for a substantial portion of total citations.

CONCLUSION

These findings may support more targeted knowledge translation into everyday musculoskeletal infection practice while also highlighting gaps and future opportunities for investigation and clinical implementation.