“How to measure the outcome in the surgical treatment of vertebral compression fractures? A systematic literature review of highly cited level-I studies”

Table 1 Summary of overall citation and citation density of included studies

Rate	Study	Journal	Year	Interventions performed	Total citations	Citation density (Citations/ year)
1.	Kallmes et al. [16]	NEJM	2009	VP vs Sham	561	70
2.	Buchbinder et al. [17]	NEJM	2009	VP vs Sham	554	69
3.	Klazen et al. [18, 19]	Lancet	2010	VP vs conservative	299	43
4.	Rousing et al. [20]	Spine	2010	VP vs conservative	104	15
5.	Liu et al. [21]	Osteoporosis International	2010	VP vs KP	102	15
6.	Farrokhi et al. [22]	Journal Neurosurgery Spine	2011	VP vs conservative	72	12
7.	Boonen et al. [15]	JBMR	2011	KP vs conservative	65	11
8.	Blattert et al. [23]	Spine	2009	KP (CaP vs PMMA)	62	8
9.	Klazen et al. [19]	American Journal of Neuroradiology	2010	VP vs conservative	60	9

NEJM = New England Journal of Medicine, JBMR = Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, VP = Vertebroplasty, KP = Kyphoplasty, CaP = Calcium phosphate, PMMA = polymethylmethacrylate.

ISSN: 1471-2474