Journals / Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 28 Sayı: 1

PREDICTIVE/PROGNOSTIC ANALYSES IN TURKISH NATIONAL ORTHOPEDIC JOURNALS: A BIBLIOMETRIC AND CONTENT ANALYSIS OF DERGIPARK ARCHIVES (2010–2025)

Mustafa Bulut(Deparment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Training and Research Hospital, Aksaray University, AKSARAY, TÜRKİYE)0000-0001-6375-8247
Furkan Soy(Deparment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Kırıkkale University, KIRIKKALE, TÜRKİYE)0000-0002-3513-8240
Pages
123–128
Publication Date
2026-04-27
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Predictive publications accounted for 0.43% of all AOTT articles and 4.82% of PATD articles, corresponding to an overall rate of 1.58%.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective:Predictive and prognostic models are increasingly used to support clinical decision-making; however, their prevalence and reporting quality in the national orthopedic literature remain unclear.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aimed to bibliometrically evaluate the frequency, temporal trends, and statistical methods of publications containing predictive analyses in orthopedic-related journals archived on DergiPark between 2010 and 2025.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Predictive publications accounted for 0.43% of all AOTT articles and 4.82% of PATD articles, corresponding to an overall rate of 1.58%.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Bibliyometrik analiz · prediktif model · TRIPOD

Abstract

Objective:Predictive and prognostic models are increasingly used to support clinical decision-making; however, their prevalence and reporting quality in the national orthopedic literature remain unclear. This study aimed to bibliometrically evaluate the frequency, temporal trends, and statistical methods of publications containing predictive analyses in orthopedic-related journals archived on DergiPark between 2010 and 2025. Material and Methods:This retrospective bibliometric and content analysis screened orthopedic-related journals archived on DergiPark. Following technical eligibility assessment for automated and reproducible data extraction, two journals—Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica (AOTT) and Pamukkale Medical Journal (PATD)—were included. All issues published between 2010 and 2025 were automatically screened. Article titles were evaluated using predefined Turkish and English predictive keywords via regular expressions. Candidate articles were manually reviewed by examining titles, abstracts, and keywords to confirm the predictive or prognostic analyses. Predictive methods were classified as Survival/Cox, ROC/AUC, Logistic Regression, or Other/Unclear. Results were reported descriptively as counts (n) and percentages (%). Results: A total of 4,120 publications were screened (AOTT: 3,042; PATD: 1,078). Title-based screening identified 90 candidate articles, of which 65 were confirmed to contain predictive analyses. Predictive publications accounted for 0.43% of all AOTT articles and 4.82% of PATD articles, corresponding to an overall rate of 1.58%. Methodological classification showed that 37 publications (56.9%) were categorized as Other/Unclear due to insufficient specification. Survival/Cox analysis was identified in 17 publications (26.2%), ROC/AUC analysis in 6 (9.2%), and logistic regression in 5 (7.7%). No nomogram-based predictive models were identified. An increase in predictive publications was observed after 2021, with the highest number reported in 2025 (n=12). Conclusion:Predictive analyses remain infrequent in national orthopedic journals archived on DergiPark, and methodological reporting is often inadequate. Wider adoption of standardized reporting frameworks such as TRIPOD is essential to improve transparency and clinical applicability.

Özet

Amaç: Prediktif ve prognostik modeller, klinik karar verme süreçlerini desteklemede giderek daha fazla kullanılmaktadır; ancak ulusal ortopedi literatüründe bu modellerin yaygınlığı ve raporlama kalitesi net olarak bilinmemektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, DergiPark arşivlerinde yer alan ortopedi ile ilişkili dergilerde prediktif analiz içeren yayınların sıklığını, zamansal eğilimlerini ve kullanılan istatistiksel yöntemleri bibliyometrik olarak değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışma retrospektif bir bibliyometrik ve içerik analizi olarak tasarlanmıştır. DergiPark platformunda arşivlenen ortopedi ile ilişkili dergiler taranmıştır. Otomatik ve tekrarlanabilir veri çıkarımı için yapılan teknik uygunluk değerlendirmesi sonrasında, Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica (AOTT) ve Pamukkale Medical Journal(PATD) olmak üzere iki dergi analize dahil edilmiştir. 2010–2025 yılları arasında yayımlanan tüm sayılar otomatik olarak taranmıştır. Makale başlıkları, Türkçe ve İngilizce prediktif anahtar kelimeler içeren düzenli ifadeler (regex) kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Aday makaleler, prediktif veya prognostik analiz varlığını doğrulamak amacıyla başlık, özet ve anahtar kelimeler üzerinden manuel olarak incelenmiştir. Kullanılan prediktif yöntemler; Sağkalım/Cox, ROC/AUC, Lojistik Regresyon ve Diğer/Belirsiz olarak sınıflandırılmıştır. Bulgular sayı (n) ve yüzde (%) olarak sunulmuştur. Bulgular:Toplam 4.120 yayın taranmıştır (AOTT: 3.042; PATD: 1.078). Başlık temelli tarama sonucunda 90 aday makale belirlenmiş, bunların 65’inde prediktif analiz bulunduğu doğrulanmıştır. Prediktif yayın oranı AOTT’de %0,43, PATD’de %4,82 olup genel oran %1,58 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Yöntem sınıflamasında 37 yayın (%56,9) yetersiz yöntem tanımı nedeniyle Diğer/Belirsiz kategorisinde yer almıştır. Sağkalım/Cox analizi 17 (%26,2), ROC/AUC analizi 6 (%9,2) ve lojistik regresyon 5 (%7,7) yayında saptanmıştır. Nomogram temelli prediktif modele rastlanmamıştır. Prediktif yayınlarda 2021 sonrası belirgin bir artış gözlenmiş, en yüksek sayı 2025 yılında kaydedilmiştir (n=12). Sonuç:DergiPark arşivlerinde yer alan ulusal ortopedi dergilerinde prediktif analiz içeren yayınlar sınırlıdır ve yöntem raporlaması sıklıkla yetersizdir. TRIPOD gibi standart raporlama rehberlerinin daha yaygın kullanımı, şeffaflık ve klinik uygulanabilirliğin artırılması açısından gereklidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Bulut, M., Soy, F. (2026). PREDICTIVE/PROGNOSTIC ANALYSES IN TURKISH NATIONAL ORTHOPEDIC JOURNALS: A BIBLIOMETRIC AND CONTENT ANALYSIS OF DERGIPARK ARCHIVES (2010–2025). Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 Sayı: 1, 123–128. https://doi.org/10.24938/kutfd.1863077

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. BMJ. 2015;350:g7594.
  2. Nagendran M, Chen Y, Lovejoy CA, et al. Artificial intelligence versus clinicians: systematic review of design, reporting standards, and claims of deep learning studies. BMJ. 2020;368:m689.
  3. Ren X, Hou L, Liu S, et al. OA-MEN: a fusion deep learning approach for enhanced accuracy in knee osteoarthritis detection and classification using X-Ray imaging. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2025;12:1437188.
  4. Rivera SC, Liu X, Chan AW, Denniston AK, Calvert MJ; SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Working Group. Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the SPIRIT-AI Extension. BMJ. 2020;370:m3210.
  5. Maffulli N, Rodriguez HC, Stone IW, et al. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in orthopedic surgery: a systematic review protocol. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15(1):478.
  6. McCloskey EV, Harvey NC, Johansson H, et al. Fracture risk assessment by the FRAX model. Climacteric. 2022;25(1):22-28.
  7. Moons KG, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(1):W1-W73.
  8. Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(6):565-574.
  9. Liu X, Cruz Rivera S, Moher D, Calvert MJ, Denniston AK; SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Working Group. Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI extension. Lancet Digit Health. 2020;2(10):e537-e548.
  10. Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Johansson H, McCloskey E. FRAX and the assessment of fracture probability in men and women from the UK. Osteoporos Int. 2008;19(4):385-397.
  11. Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):44-56.