Comparison of citation rates between Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 articles across 24 major scientific journals.

Covid-19 has been front and center in the global landscape since the beginning of 2020. In response, the scientific field has dedicated enormous amounts of resources to researching the virus and its effects. The number of times Covid-19 publications are being cited throughout the literature appears remarkably high but has not been directly compared to non-Covid-19 papers in the same journals over an extended period. In our study, we use Clarivate's Web of Science-Science Citation Index Expanded™ database to identify Covid-19 papers published in 24 major scientific journals over a period of 24 months from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021. We conduct our search using keywords "Covid-19", "coronavirus", and "sars-cov-2" to locate publications with these words in the title. We then quantify the number of citations these papers have received and compare rates to non-Covid-19 papers in the same journals over the same timeframe. We find that, across 24 open-access and subscription-based scientific journals, Covid-19 papers published in the past 2 years currently have a median citation rate of 120.79 compared to 21.63 for non-Covid-19 papers. When negative binomial regression is used to minimize the influence of other variables such as article number variation and field of research, Covid-19 papers have still experienced more than 80% increase in citations relative to non-Covid-19 papers. These novel findings demonstrate that Covid-19 papers are being cited at remarkably higher rates than non-Covid-19 articles contained within the same journals. This suggests that journal impact factor, which is a product of the number of citations that recently published articles receive, will likely be drastically influenced by the number of Covid-19 papers that a journal has included within its pages in the previous years.

Medial patellofemoral ligament MRI abnormalities in the setting of MCL injuries: are they clinically relevant?

OBJECTIVE: To assess MRI abnormalities of the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) in patients with clinically and MRI-proven superficial medial collateral ligament (sMCL) injuries and determine the clinical significance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: High-field strength knee MRI examinations were selected which demonstrated sMCL injuries. These cases were retrospectively reviewed for the presence, location, and severity of MPFL abnormality. The MPFL was divided into a more superior transverse component arising from a femoral attachment (tMPFL), and a broader more inferior oblique decussation component (odMPFL) arising from the anterior margin of the upper sMCL. Chart review was performed to determine the clinical relevance of any MPFL findings. RESULTS: One hundred patients with MCL injury were identified. These included 37 grade I sprains, 33 partial tears, 20 high-grade partial tears, and 10 full thickness tears. Abnormal edema was present at the femoral attachment of the tMPFL in 83%. The odMPFL was abnormal in 90%, most commonly involving the femoral third. No patients had imaging evidence of concurrent lateral patellar dislocation on the initial MRI study. No patients had documented patellofemoral instability at the time of original injury or upon follow-up. No patients required MPFL reconstruction. CONCLUSION: The MRI appearance of the MPFL is abnormal in the majority of patients with clinically and MRI-documented sMCL sprains and tears. These cases had no evidence of concurrent lateral patellar dislocation on the initial MRI and did not develop patellar instability symptoms.