Differences in Highly-Cited and Lowly-Cited Manuscripts in Plastic Surgery

The 50 most cited articles and science mapping analysis of vaginal tightening

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The study was aimed at exploring the 50 most cited articles related to vaginal tightening.

METHODS

The papers were searched through the Thomson Reuters Web of Science on 30 July 2022, and were ranked by the total number of citations. The included articles were analyzed for author, journal, country, number of citations, keywords, subject matter, and level of evidence. The search output was also imported into VOSviewer.

RESULTS

The 50 most cited articles were cited a combined total of 2,558 times. The papers were published between 1990 and 2020, of which 86% were published between 2010 and 2020. They included 38 original articles, 8 reviews, 3 editorial articles, and 1 letter. Most articles were published in gynecology-related journals (n=30, 60%). The articles covered a wide range of topics, the most common being laser/radiofrequency treatment, vaginal tightening procedures, and urinary incontinence. The majority presented findings supported by level IV or V evidence. Through co-occurrence analysis, high-frequency words and countries were displayed well.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shed light on frequently read articles and influential topics about vaginal tightening. The highly cited literature mainly focused on laser or radiofrequency treatments and gynecologists currently dominate the highly cited literature on vaginal tightening. The articles related to surgical treatments are low in number and evidence level so far. The co-occurrence analysis reveals the hot research content and active countries in the field. In general, the study provides useful evidence for future research and educational materials.

Bibliometric analysis of 100 top cited articles of heart failure-associated diseases in combination with machine learning

Objective

The aim of this paper is to analyze the application of machine learning in heart failure-associated diseases using bibliometric methods and to provide a dynamic and longitudinal bibliometric analysis of heart failure-related machine learning publications.

Materials and methods

Web of Science was screened to gather the articles for the study. Based on bibliometric indicators, a search strategy was developed to screen the title for eligibility. Intuitive data analysis was employed to analyze the top-100 cited articles and VOSViewer was used to analyze the relevance and impact of all articles. The two analysis methods were then compared to get conclusions.

Results

The search identified 3,312 articles. In the end, 2,392 papers were included in the study, which were published between 1985 and 2023. All articles were analyzed using VOSViewer. Key points of the analysis included the co-authorship map of authors, countries and organizations, the citation map of journal and documents and a visualization of keyword co-occurrence analysis. Among these 100 top-cited papers, with a mean of 122.9 citations, the most-cited article had 1,189, and the least cited article had 47. Harvard University and the University of California topped the list among all institutes with 10 papers each. More than one-ninth of the authors of these 100 top-cited papers wrote three or more articles. The 100 articles came from 49 journals. The articles were divided into seven areas according to the type of machine learning approach employed: Support Vector Machines, Convolutional Neural Networks, Logistic Regression, Recurrent Neural Networks, Random Forest, Naive Bayes, and Decision Tree. Support Vector Machines were the most popular method.

Conclusions

This analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the artificial intelligence (AI)-related research conducted in the field of heart failure, which helps healthcare institutions and researchers better understand the prospects of AI in heart failure and formulate more scientific and effective research plans. In addition, our bibliometric evaluation can assist healthcare institutions and researchers in determining the advantages, sustainability, risks, and potential impacts of AI technology in heart failure.

Trend of Academic Productivity in Plastic Surgery and the Impact of COVID-19: A Bibliometric Analysis

BACKGROUND

Plastic surgery has grown rapidly over the past decade, with increasing scientific output. The emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a considerable impact on plastic surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To identify trends in published literature in plastic surgery from 2011 to 2021. To explore the impact of COVID-19 on scientific research output through bibliometric analysis methods.

METHODS

Web of Science was searched by authors on December 23, 2021. Published papers about plastic surgery over the last decade were analyzed. The search output was imported into VOSviewer for science mapping.

RESULTS

The actual number of papers related to plastic surgery during the COVID-19 period was higher than expected one. For scientific outputs in plastic surgery, keywords about surgical practice had a high frequency. "Reconstruction," "effect," "flap," "tissue," "defect," "model" maintained a high level of heat before and after COVID-19. The heat of "risk," "complication," "review," "infection," "cohort," and "meta-analysis" increased after the outbreak of COVID-19. The international collaboration showed an upward trend despite the impact of COVID-19. From the perspective of the volume of plastic surgery publications, some journals had a more positive performance compared to the pre-epidemic period. The proportion of original articles decreased after the spread of COVID-19 from 70.26% to 63.84%.

CONCLUSION

Although the COVID-19 has a profound impact on the healthcare industry, the bibliographic data reveals an increasing scientific output in the field of plastic surgery over time. For plastic surgery, high-frequency terms, research hotspots, popular journals, article types, and international collaboration have changed under the influence of COVID-19.

Research Promotion is Associated with Broader Influence and Higher Impact of Plastic Surgery Publications

BACKGROUND

Social media has altered the mechanisms by which published research is disseminated and accessed. The objective of this study was to measure the effect of promotion on research article dissemination, influence, and impact in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

METHODS

All articles published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from January 1, 2016-December 31, 2018 were obtained and reviewed to determine inclusion/exclusion and for the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), citations, relative citation rate (RCR), and 16 unique promotional tags (journal club, editor's pick, press release, patient safety, etc.) as indexed on the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery website. 1,502 articles were included in the analysis. Statistical analysis was completed using descriptive statistics, Pearson's correlations, and Student t-tests where appropriate with a predetermined level of significance of p≤0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 637 articles (42.4%) had a promotional tag, while 252 (16.8%) had multiple tags. Articles with promotional tags had higher AAS (30.35 vs 8.22; p<0.001), more citations (11.96 vs 8.47; p<0.001), and a higher RCR (2.97 vs 2.06; p<0.001) compared to articles without a tag. Articles with multiple tags had higher AAS (50.17 vs 17.39; p<0.001), more citations (15.78 vs 9.47; p<0.001), and a higher RCR (3.67 vs 2.51; p<0.001) compared to articles with only one tag. As the number of tags increased for an article, AAS (p<0.001), citation count (p<0.001), and RCR (p<0.001) likewise increased.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis strongly suggests that promotion of research articles is associated with significantly wider dissemination, broader visibility, and more subsequent citations in the literature.

Anesthesiology Articles Published in 2020: A Review and Characterization of COVID-19 Versus Non-COVID-19 Publications in Top Anesthesiology Journals

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on the practice of medicine worldwide, particularly in anesthesiology. As the clinical realm has rapidly adjusted to the realities of the pandemic, anesthesiology literature has also changed significantly to reflect this. The purpose of this study was to characterize the effects the COVID-19 pandemic has had on anesthesiology literature. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the COVID-19-related literature in the anesthesiology community would gain more interest than non-COVID-19-related articles. A total of 15 anesthesiology-related journals with the highest impact factor in 2019, according to the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), were selected for data collection. An advanced PubMed search identified 5,722 COVID-19-related articles published by these journals in 2020. Next, articles with titles including “corona,” “COVID,” “COVID-19,” “pandemic,” “SARS,” or “SARS-CoV-2” were selected for inclusion in the study, which resulted in 676 (12%) articles. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the Altmetric score, which is a weighted calculation of the attention an article receives online, for COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 articles. Articles were then further characterized across multiple different variables, including country of origin, month published, type of article, and subspecialty of anesthesiology it pertained to. Of the 15 journals investigated, 676 (12%) articles of the 5,722 total articles published were found to be COVID-19-related material. The majority of the articles were found to be published in April (18%), May (19.5%), and June (14%). The majority of these articles were related either to general anesthesia (operating room anesthesiology that is not tied to a particular subspecialty fellowship track) (48%) or critical care (39%). By article type, most were determined to be editorial (71%) in nature, followed by original research articles (21%), of which most were cross-sectional (55%) studies. When compared with non-COVID-19-related articles, COVID-19-related articles had a significantly greater Altmetric score (29.518 versus 8.6333, p < 0.001). Of the COVID-19-related articles, original articles had the greatest Altmetric score, when compared to editorials and guidelines (54.794 versus 20.777 versus 40.643, p < 0.002). The response of the academic anesthesiology community to the COVID-19 pandemic was strong and timely, with a particularly strong focus on critical care anesthesia. The impact of the pandemic was strongly felt by the anesthesiology community, and their timely response served to guide our country and world through an incredibly challenging time. The pandemic highlighted the value of anesthesiologists worldwide, not only in the operating room setting but particularly as critical care physicians.

Diversity in Plastic Surgery Authorship: A 14-Year Analysis of 2688 Articles Published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

BACKGROUND

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is a duty and privilege. It is essential to the advancement of evidence-based medicine and often used as a proxy for academic achievement, contributing to decisions around promotion in academia. Within plastic surgery, authors have historically been male surgeons affiliated with academic institutions, lacking representation of women, private practice, medical students, and international collaboration. This study analyzes differences in authors' gender, practice affiliation, degree of education, and international collaboration in articles published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, which was chosen as the representative journal given its high impact factor (3.946) and consistent ranking as the number one journal in plastic surgery worldwide.

METHODS

A list of Breast, Cosmetic, and Hand/Peripheral Nerve articles published between 2006 and 2019 was compiled from the online archive of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Demographic author characteristics were recorded, and statistical analyses were performed to identify trends over time.

RESULTS

A total of 2688 articles were analyzed. The proportion of articles written by female authors in the Breast category, authors in private practice with academic affiliation in the Cosmetic section, and U.S. collaboration with other countries increased over time (p = 0.038, p = 0.029, p < 0.001, respectively). First authors with bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degrees have also been contributing increasingly.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis revealed increasing demographic heterogeneity of authors in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery over time, with increasing contributions from women, surgeons in private practice with academic affiliation, medical students, and international collaborations. The Journal is capturing contributions from an increasingly diverse authorship, consistent with the changing demographics of plastic surgeons.

Characteristics of the least-cited and most-cited articles in ophthalmology journals: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Limited research has examined differences between uncited papers and their most-cited counterparts. By comparing characteristics of each cohort, it is possible to better determine factors associated with increased citation count in the ophthalmology literature.

METHODS

We initially identified all research articles published in six popular general ophthalmology journals (Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, American Journal of Ophthalmology, British Journal of Ophthalmology, and Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology) between 2001 and 2011. Forty-nine articles were identified as having accrued zero citations as of March 2021 and were compared with an equivalent number of articles with the highest number of citations published in the same journals and time period. Significance (p < 0.05) for comparisons was determined using the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Compared to the least-cited articles, the most-cited articles were significantly more likely to be clinical, multi-institutional, and multi-national in scope, report a statistically significant result, have a conflict of interest, state a funding source, and have higher sample sizes. These publications had significantly more words in the abstract and manuscript and more references. Overall, the first authors of the most-cited articles were significantly more likely to be female and report greater prior research productivity, as assessed by the relative citation ratio (RCR).

CONCLUSION

Considering a small number of articles were uncited at least a decade after publication, it appears most research is useful for future investigations. However, there remain distinct differences between uncited articles and their most-cited equivalents in ophthalmology.

The 100 Most-disruptive Articles in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Sub-specialties (1954-2014)

Alternative bibliometrics have recently been the subject of significantly increased interest. The disruption index is a new bibliometric that was recently applied to surgery and urology and identifies papers that shift paradigms and eclipse previous research in a given field.

METHODS

The 100 most-disruptive publications in the 14 most prominent plastic and reconstructive surgery and subspecialty journals were identified.

RESULTS

We present the 100 most-disruptive studies as well as the 100 most-cited studies for comparison in n=14 of the most popular plastic and reconstructive surgery (and subspecialty) journals between 1954 and 2014. The 100 most-disruptive publications in these journals were more disruptive than 99.8% of all PubMed papers. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) had the most papers in the top 100 (n=64) followed by British Journal of Plastic Surgery (currently Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, n=15), and Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (n=7). PRS had 9 of the top 10 papers. However, Clinics in Plastic Surgery had the highest average disruption score for all its published papers (0.0029). The correlation coefficient linking disruption scores and citation counts was 0.01 and 0.11, respectively. The most common decade represented in the top 100 was the 1980's (n=31) and the least common was the 2000's (n=9).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first application of the disruption index to plastic and reconstructive surgery. The disruption score provides a unique ability to identify research that has shifted paradigms and driven the innovation that defines our specialty.

Factors Associated with Low and High Article Citations in Four Prominent Orthopaedic Surgery Journals

BACKGROUND

Research is a cornerstone for the advancement of clinical practice and guidelines across all medical and surgical fields. To achieve significant contribution to the field, research must be circulated, read, and understood.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to investigate which factors are associated with higher and lower citation rates in orthopaedic surgery literature.

METHODS

A query was performed to identify all of the primary research articles published between 1998 and 2008 in four prominent orthopaedics journals. From there, the 50 most highly and lowly cited articles were identified and analyzed for various factors that distinguished the highly cited group from the lowly cited group. Various statistical tests were used depending on the type of variable being evaluated.

RESULTS

After data compilation and statistical analysis, 16 statistically significant factors were apparent that differed between the two groups. Seven non-statistically significant factors were also identified.

CONCLUSION

This study illustrates that certain statistically significant factors influence the citation rates of papers in orthopaedic surgery literature. If utilized appropriately, these factors could lead to increased consumption and circulation of future orthopaedic surgery literature.