The passage of a decade is a milestone worthy of note, encouraging reflection on what we have accomplished and what lies ahead. In that spirit, it is with great pleasure that we celebrate the 10-year anniversary of JBJS Reviews.

In 2013, finding that Current Concepts Reviews in JBJS were among the journal's highest-rated articles, we sought to provide readers globally with more information in this format while also taking advantage of digital access, which a weekly online journal could allow. So began JBJS Reviews.

Since its launch, Reviews has consistently provided authoritative, evidence-based review articles upholding the JBJS standard of quality. Thanks are extended to our authors, the Board of Associate Editors, our reviewers, and all who have worked to ensure the steady and timely publication of high-quality manuscripts. Reviews now follows a continuous publication model, offering readers new content on a regular basis and is indexed in MEDLINE/PubMed. Readers also turn to Reviews for trusted content in earning continuing medical education credits.

To commemorate the journal's 10-year anniversary, we have compiled a collection of the 10 most popular JBJS Reviews articles published since the journal's inception1–10. We invite readers to explore this special edition collection, which is currently available at JBJS.org and represents expert insights into a range of topics of interest to orthopaedic surgeons.

While Narrative Reviews and Systematic Reviews continue to serve as mainstay content of the journal, 2 other article types help to distinguish JBJS Reviews: Critical Analysis Reviews and Team Approach articles. Critical Analysis Reviews feature clinical care recommendations derived from a comprehensive evaluation of appropriate literature along with Grades of Recommendation summarizing the quality of the literature. Team Approach articles, introduced in 2016, present a clinical scenario and then outline important aspects of diagnosis and treatment from the perspectives of various members of the treatment team. Both of these well-received article types aim to optimize the value of reviews for our readers and will continue to be preferred submissions11.

As we reflect on 10 years, we naturally consider the impact that Reviews is making. Among journals, one measurable benchmark is the impact factor, which Reviews has now received for the first time, earning an impact factor of 2.3. While just one measure of a publication's performance, such metrics will continue to offer important insight into how we are doing.

Our 10-year anniversary arrives at a time of great change more broadly in the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI). The challenge for all of us is to both understand and appreciate the appropriate role of AI in publishing while ensuring the integrity of patient-focused content on our pages12. Perhaps it is fair to say that there are more questions than answers at this point given the rapid rollout of AI tools, but this area will remain of key interest to us.

Looking ahead, we will continue to provide high-quality, peer-reviewed articles of benefit to the orthopaedic community and the patients we treat. This is as good a time as any to double-down on our core commitments and ready ourselves for the future. I look forward to reading the next 10 years' “top 10” articles and to measuring their effects on the evolution of our specialty.

1. Moyer R, Ikert K, Long K, Marsh J. The value of preoperative exercise and education for patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JBJS Rev. 2017;5(12):e2. 2. Chang Y, Bhandari M, Zhu KL, Mirza RD, Ren M, Kennedy SA, Negm A, Bhatnagar N, Naji FN, Milovanovic L, Fei Y, Agarwal A, Kamran R, Cho SM, Schandelmaier S, Wang L, Jin L, Hu S, Zhao Y, Lopes LC, Wang M, Petrisor B, Ristevski B, Siemieniuk RAC, Guyatt GH. Antibiotic prophylaxis in the management of open fractures: a systematic survey of current practice and recommendations. JBJS Rev. 2019;7(2):e1. 3. Hinckley N, Davidson J, Bradford Henley M, Davidson JR, McIntyre L, Chhabra A. Coding basics and guidelines for musculoskeletal office evaluation and management. JBJS Rev. 2020;8(7):e19.00194. 4. Meek WM, Kucharik MP, Eberlin CT, Naessig SA, Rudisill SS, Martin SD. Calf strain in athletes. JBJS Rev. 2022;10(3):e21.00183. 5. Dekker TJ, Dekker PK, Tainter DM, Easley ME, Adams SB. Treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus: a critical analysis review. JBJS Rev. 2017;5(3):e4. 6. Pollock M, Somerville L, Firth A, Lanting B. Outpatient total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. JBJS Rev. 2016;4(12):e4. 7. Kirsch JM, Namdari S. Rehabilitation after anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a critical analysis review. JBJS Rev. 2020;8(2):e0129. 8. Choudhry MN, Malik RA, Charalambous CP. Blood glucose levels following intra-articular steroid injections in patients with diabetes: a systematic review. JBJS Rev. 2016;4(3):e5. 9. Hoellwarth JS, Tetsworth K, Rozbruch SR, Handal MB, Coughlan A, Al Muderis M. Osseointegration for amputees: current implants, techniques, and future directions. JBJS Rev. 2020;8(3):e0043. 10. Bindra R, Colantoni Woodside J. Treatment of proximal interphalangeal joint fracture-dislocations. JBJS Rev. 2015;3(12):e1. 11. Einhorn TA, Swiontkowksi MF. What types of articles does JBJS Reviews prefer to publish? JBJS Rev. 2022;10(3):e22.00012. 12. Leopold SS, Haddad FS, Sandell LJ, Swiontkowski M. Artificial intelligence applications and scholarly publication in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2023;105(11):819.