Levels of Evidence in the Plastic Surgery Literature: A Citation Analysis of the Top 50 'Classic' Papers

Characteristics, level of evidence, and impact of clinical studies on peri-implantitis: 2017 to 2021

BACKGROUND

The level of evidence (LOE) is an important tool in current evidence-based practice and clinical research. However, in clinical studies on peri-implantitis, the present status of the LOE and its association with research impact remains to be determined. The present study aimed to gather the characteristics and LOE of clinical studies on peri-implantitis conducted from 2017 to 2021 and assess the association of the LOE with social and scientific impact.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched to retrieve clinical studies that evaluated peri-implantitis-related healthcare interventions and were published between 2017 and 2021. A 4-level modified Oxford 2011 LOE tool was used to determine the LOE of these studies. Citation count and Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) were derived from the Web of Science and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Multivariate generalized estimation equation (GEE) analysis was conducted to explore relationships between the LOE and citation count, and between the LOE and AAS; the publication year was considered the grouping factor for adjusting for potential clustering effects.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-five studies were considered eligible. The percentages by level from Level-1 to Level-4 were 9.8%, 35.7%, 28.9%, and 25.5%. Multivariable GEE analyses revealed that studies with higher LOE ratings had significantly greater citation counts (p = 0.008). However, no significant association (p = 0.872) was observed between the LOE and AAS.

CONCLUSIONS

From 2017 to 2021, more than 40% of studies published on peri-implantitis each year had high-LOE ratings. High-LOE studies showed a tendency to have greater scientific impact.

Attributes of a Good Microsurgeon-A Brief Counsel to the Up-and-Coming Prospects

Microsurgery, which deservedly sits on top of the reconstruction ladder, has been a boon to plastic surgery. It is because of this marvelous tool that plastic surgeons the world over have been able to tackle many reconstructive dilemmas, which were once considered to be an improbability. Microsurgery-aided revolutions have rendered a new meaning to all forms of reconstruction-whether it is postoncological, posttraumatic, or postlymphedema reconstruction. As the most advanced reconstructive medium at our disposal that has broadened the horizons of plastic surgery exponentially, it is but obvious that many budding plastic surgeons are drawn toward this subspecialty. In lieu of the aforementioned facts, it is necessary to sensitize all such aspiring surgeons about the various intricacies concerning the field of microsurgery. This article with its focus on the six desirable microsurgical attributes of "Clarity, Curiosity, Perseverance, Passion, An Open Mindset and Action," is meant to be a modest attempt on part of the authors to share their microsurgical insights, procured through their respective journeys, with budding aspirants, hoping to sensitize as well as motivate them for the challenging path that lies ahead.

The 50 most influential papers pertaining to the Ilizarov method: A bibliometric analysis

The Ilizarov method has become a widely recognised surgical technique. A bibliometric analysis of the 50 most-cited publications relating to the Ilizarov method was carried out. Cumulative number of citations was 4,918. Mean number of citations was 98. h-index was 50. Impact factor of these journals ranged from 0.5-5.082. Our study suggests that a highly cited and influential paper likely originated from an American journal with a high impact factor and was published in the 1990s/2000s. Our compilation of the 50 most influential papers on the Ilizarov method will prove invaluable to those in training and those involved in further advancing the technique.

Level of Evidence of Dental Research in Saudi Arabia (2000-2020)

Objectives

The level of evidence (LOE) of Saudi dental research from 2000 to 2020 was evaluated, and factors associated with the LOE were determined.

Methods

This study was a systematic review. PubMed, Web of Science, and Medline databases were utilized to retrieve available dental articles published in English between January 2000 and May 2020. The inclusion criteria consisted of clinical studies conducted in Saudi Arabia with at least one Saudi dental affiliation. The retrieved eligible articles were evaluated independently by two reviewers using a modified Oxford LOE scale. The LOE of the studies was compared between the last two decades.

Results

Of the 7237 articles identified, 1557 articles met the inclusion criteria. Approximately 78% of the published articles reported Level IV evidence. A higher trend toward Level I, II, and III publications has occurred in recent years (i.e., 2010-2020). However, no statistically significant difference existed in LOE proportions between the two decades. The presence of international collaboration and high journals' impact factor was significantly associated with a higher LOE.

Conclusion

Most published dental research studies were low LOE studies (i.e., Level IV). National and international collaboration is highly encouraged as this is a factor, according to our findings, that would be a positive addition toward publishing dental research of a higher LOE in Saudi Arabia.

Dissemination and Implementation Science in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: Perfecting, Protecting, and Promoting the Innovation That Defines Our Specialty

SUMMARY

Plastic and reconstructive surgery has an illustrious history of innovation. The advancement, if not the survival, of the specialty depends on the continual development and improvement of procedures, practices, and technologies. It follows that the safe adoption of innovation into clinical practice is also paramount. Traditionally, adoption has relied on the diffusion of new knowledge, which is a consistent but slow and passive process. The emerging field of dissemination and implementation science promises to expedite the spread and adoption of evidence-based interventions into clinical practice. The field is increasingly recognized as an important function of academia and is a growing priority for major health-related funding institutions. The authors discuss the contemporary challenges of the safe implementation and dissemination of new innovations in plastic and reconstructive surgery, and call on their colleagues to engage in this growing field of dissemination and implementation science.

Articulating the "So, What?" in Clinical Research: Insight from the M-CHOIR Group

With the academic culture of "publish or perish," authors must ensure that they are delivering high-quality data with a meaningful impact on clinical practice. Even for physician-scientists at the top of their fields, establishing the relevance of a study to clinical practice is a challenge. Thus, it is essential that research proposals ask questions that are clinically important, use appropriate methodologies, and examine outcomes that are relevant to both the physicians and the patients. The question of "so, what?" or in other words, "who cares?" is one that can make or break a study's impact on clinical practice. Researchers should use models such as PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study design) and FINER (Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant) and ask why readers will care about their study's findings before the study is conducted. By doing so, researchers can ensure the successful execution of their study and a meaningful impact of their findings, in both academia and clinical practice. This Special Topic article aims to guide researchers in producing relevant, impactful conclusions of their studies by providing input and resources from the Michigan Center for Hand Outcomes and Innovation (M-CHOIR) group.

Scaphoid fractures: A bibliometric analysis of the most influential papers

Scaphoid fractures are commonly seen following a fall on an outstretched hand and often missed on initial presentation. An untreated scaphoid fracture may result in avascular necrosis of the scaphoid due to its retrograde blood supply. Published articles guide our investigation and management of these injuries. A citation analysis was performed on the top 30 articles relating to scaphoid fractures ranked by citation number. The 30 articles have been cited a total of 4595 times originating from 9 different countries. The leading article was cited 443 times with an average of 12.66 citations/year. Although this may not directly correlate with study quality, it does provide an insight to the influence which a paper has had on the scientific community. This list may prove invaluable to clinicians involved in the treatment of patients with scaphoid fractures and those actively furthering the development of the field.

Level of Evidence in Facial Plastic Surgery Research: A Procedure-Level Analysis

BACKGROUND

As evidence-based medicine has taken hold across medical specialties, the level of evidence within the facial plastic surgery literature has risen, but remains weak in comparison. There has not yet been a systematic, critical appraisal of the relative strength of evidence among subsets of the practice of facial plastic surgery.

METHODS

The current study is a systematic review, designed to evaluate the level of evidence observed in the facial plastic surgery literature. Five journals were queried using facial plastic surgery terms for four selected years over a 10-year period. Following screening, articles were assigned to a category regarding subject matter, assessed for the presence of various methodological traits, and evaluated for overall level of evidence. Comparisons were made in regard to level of evidence across the breadth of facial plastic surgery subject matter.

RESULTS

A total of 826 articles were included for final review. Studies on operative facial rejuvenation and rhinoplasty had significantly fewer authors on average than studies on cancer reconstruction or craniofacial topics. Craniofacial studies demonstrated higher levels of evidence relative to all other categories, with the exception of facial paralysis and facial trauma studies, from which there was no significant difference. In general, reconstructive studies had significantly more authors and higher levels of evidence than did articles with an aesthetic focus.

CONCLUSION

Level of evidence in facial plastic surgery remains relatively weak overall. Reconstructive and particularly craniofacial studies demonstrate higher mean level of evidence, relative to other subsets of facial plastic surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

An Update on Level of Evidence Trends in Facial Plastic Surgery Research

Background: Knowledge of the quality of evidence in facial plastic surgery research is essential for the implementation of evidence-based practices. The purpose of this study is to provide an update over the past decade as to whether the level of evidence in leading journals featuring topics in facial plastic surgery has changed in comparison with prior reports. Materials and Methods: This study is a systematic review, designed to evaluate the level of evidence observed in the facial plastic surgery literature over time. Five journals were queried using facial plastic surgery keywords for four selected years for a 10-year period. After screening, articles were assessed for the presence of various methodological traits and were evaluated for overall level of evidence. These variables were compared across the years studied to evaluate trends in level of evidence. Results: A total of 826 articles were included for final review. For all selected years, level IV or level V evidence was the most prevalent level of evidence. Over time, significantly less level IV (p = 0.009) and significantly more level II (p = 0.007) evidence was published. The proportion of studies reporting confidence intervals (p < 0.001) and p-values (p = 0.02) were significantly greater in later years. Conclusions: The level of evidence of facial plastic surgery literature has increased over time, as demonstrated by an increased proportion of level II evidence, decreased proportion of level IV evidence, and increased use of p-values and confidence intervals. The absolute number of randomized controlled trials continues to remain low.

Trends in the level of evidence and impact of clinical studies published in leading oral implantology journals: 2008-2018

OBJECTIVES

To present the characteristics and level of evidence (LOE) of clinical studies published in leading oral implantology journals during 2008-2018 and to explore whether the LOE of a study is associated with its scientific and social impact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical studies with direct relevance to the evaluation of healthcare interventions published in 2008, 2013, and 2018 in six oral implantology journals were identified via hand searches. A modified 4-level Oxford 2011 LOE tool was used to assess the LOE of all eligible studies. The citation count and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) of each study were extracted from Web of Science and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Thereafter, multivariable generalized estimation equation analyses were used to investigate the association between LOE, citation counts, and AAS, adjusting for potential confounding factors and clustering effects.

RESULTS

A total of 763 clinical studies were included, among which the proportion of level-1, level-2, level-3, and level-4 studies was 2.4%, 30.4%, 40.2%, and 27.0%, respectively. During 2008-2018, the proportion of high LOE studies (level-1 and level-2) increased substantially from 24.6% to 43.1%, although the number of systematic reviews that only include randomized controlled trials has remained limited. According to multivariable analyses, the citation count (p = .002) and AAS (p = .005) of high LOE studies were both significantly greater than those of low LOE studies.

CONCLUSIONS

During the past decade, the proportion of high LOE studies has increased substantially in the field of oral implantology. Clinical studies with higher LOE tend to have greater scientific and social impact.

What Is Driving Paradigm Shifts in Plastic Surgery and Is Cosmetic Surgery Keeping Up?

BACKGROUND

Cosmetic surgery represents 20 to 30 percent of total plastic surgical volume. The authors hypothesize that with current capitalization and market share, cosmetic surgery should be proportionally represented in scientific innovation.

METHODS

All journals that may contain articles relevant to plastic surgery were selected from the 2016 edition of Journal Citation Reports. The authors identified, reviewed, and analyzed the 100 top-cited plastic surgery clinical articles using the Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 2017) as a proxy for innovation.

RESULTS

The top-100 articles were cited a median of 329.5 times (range, 240 to 1709 times). Sixteen journals were represented, led by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (45 percent) and Annals of Surgery (15 percent). Fifty-six percent were reconstructive, 13 percent were breast, 11 percent were pediatric/craniofacial, 11 percent were cosmetic, and 9 percent were hand/peripheral nerve articles. Only 11 percent of articles represented level of evidence I or II, with the majority (79 percent) of articles being level IV. Sixty-seven percent of publications originated from United States. The 11 cosmetic articles originated from different subspecialties: injectables, fillers, and fat grafting (n = 7); contouring (n = 2); facial cosmetic (n = 1); and general cosmetic (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Cosmetic innovation is not keeping up with reconstructive innovation; it is unknown why cosmetic surgery is lacking. The authors offer several speculations as to why there is a gap in cosmetic surgical research and, by proxy, innovation.

The level of evidence, scientific impact and social impact of clinical studies in periodontology: A methodological study

AIMS

To analyse the level of evidence (LOE) of clinical studies in the field of periodontology, and to investigate whether LOE is a predictor of scientific impact and social impact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical studies published in five leading periodontal journals during 2015-2019 were identified. The LOE of included studies were assessed with a modified LOE classification system based on Oxford 2009 LOE, Oxford 2011 LOE and GRADE guidelines. Citation counts were harvested from Web of Science and Scopus. Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) were obtained from Altmetric Explorer. Multivariable generalized estimation equation (GEE) analyses were used to investigate association between LOE and citation count, as well as between LOE and AAS.

RESULTS

Among 768 studies included, the proportion of level-1, level-2, level-3 and level-4 was 10.4%, 44.8%, 13.7% and 31.1%, respectively. In the multivariable GEE analyses, high LOE was a significant predictor of higher average citation count (p = .010) and higher AAS (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

The LOE of clinical studies in the periodontal field is relatively high in general, although it varies significantly in different journals. Studies with high LOE tend to have greater scientific impact and social impact than low LOE studies.

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

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of research comparing journal articles that accrue numerous citations with those that accrue few citations over time. Understanding differences between journal articles can help direct investigators in designing and conducting their research.

METHODS

Using advanced bibliometric tools, we queried four plastic surgery journals (Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, and Microsurgery) for primary research articles published between 1998 and 2008 accruing zero or one citations with at least a 10-y lag time. Forty-seven articles were identified as low citation and were compared with an equal number of articles in the same journals that accrued the highest number of citations in the same period as high citation (HC). The data were analyzed using Student t-tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, chi-square tests, and Fisher exact tests. The level of significance was established at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

When compared with the HC cohort, the low citation articles were more likely to be nonclinical (P < 0.001), have no plastic surgery authors (P = 0.0026), and focus on the field of microsurgery (P = 0.003). The HC cohort was more likely to have higher sample sizes (P = 0.0339), focus on aesthetic/cosmetic surgery (P = 0.003), have a higher number of other disciplines included on authorship (P < 0.001), references (P = 0.0451), manuscript pages (P < 0.001), and words in the abstract (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A small number of articles published in four plastic surgery journals were uncited during a 10-y period. There are qualitative and quantitative differences between highly and lowly cited articles in the plastic surgery literature. Investigators should consider these differences when designing and conducting studies.

Reading between the Lines: A Plastic Surgeon's Guide to Evaluating the Quality of Evidence in Research Publications

An important component of practicing evidence-based medicine (EBM) in plastic surgery is staying current with published research, an increasingly difficult task given the rapid growth of the literature. This article reviews the methodological aspects specific to the aesthetic surgery field that should be considered when evaluating the quality of evidence in research publications in the context of the level of evidence (LOE) grading scales that are currently used by plastic surgery journals. Reporting the LOE in a research publication can help to highlight the quality of the research and the potential for bias so that the reader may prioritize information accordingly. However, LOE classifications are not an absolute index of the quality of evidence and do not preclude careful evaluation of the study’s methods and results in the context of the authors’ conclusions. As the application of evidence-based medicine expands in the plastic surgery community, surgeons must be mindful of how to appropriately interpret research findings and assess the utility of applying results to their practice.

The top 100 cited articles on urological emergencies: A bibliometric analysis

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we bibliometrically evaluated the top 100 cited articles on urological emergencies published since 1975 with a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary perspective.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We obtained the data for this study from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science and PubMed. We determined 360 articles which were related directly or indirectly to urological emergencies between 1975 and 2017 and analyzed retrospectively the top 100 cited articles among these.

RESULTS

The mean citation impact factor of the top 100 cited articles was 25.8±50.1 (range: 4-467) between 1991 and 2014. We determined that classical articles were cited for 2588 times and the total number of self-citations was 23 (0.8%). Highest publication rate per year was in 2006 (n=9). Among the institutions which published ≥2 articles per year University of Texas led the way with 5 articles. The top 100 articles came from 27 countries and 58% of these are from the USA (n=29), the United Kingdom (n=23) and Germany (n=6). For the top 3 journals of the 33 of top 100 articles most frequently cited were published in journals with an impact factor ≥2 namely, Journal of Urology (n=15), British Journal of Urology International (n=13) and Urology (n=5) respectively. The most frequently cited main topics were penile emergencies with 22 articles and acute scrotal problems with 15 articles. Most of the classical articles on urological emergencies were based on clinical researches (n=95) and also we found that the average level of evidence for the top 100 cited articles was 4.16 (range: 1-5). Mostly preferred publishing language was English among this scientific papers (n=90).

CONCLUSION

Although not considered as a completely unbiased and adequate criterion for scientific evaluations, analysis of the top 100 cited articles provides us with important current data on urological emergencies.

Bibliometric analysis of the top-cited articles on islet transplantation

AIMS

To identify and characterize the top-cited articles in the field of islet transplantation.

METHODS

We used the Science Citation Index Expanded database to identify the most frequently cited articles published after 1900. Articles were evaluated using the following characteristics: citation number, publication year, study design, references, country and institution of origin, authorship, and journal. Keyword analysis and citation networks were used to analyze research trends.

RESULTS

The most frequently cited articles received between 146 and 2988 citations; the median was 291. All of the most frequently cited articles were published between 1972 and 2012, and 85 articles were published after 1990. The most popular study design involved basic science (75 articles). The leading countries were the United States (US) and Canada, and the leading institutions were the University of Alberta, Canada, and the University of Minnesota, in the US. Journals specializing in diabetes or transplantation published more than half of the articles (n = 53, 52%), with the journal Diabetes publishing the largest number (n = 30). No association was found between a journal's impact factor and the number of top-cited articles it published. There was no correlation between the number of citations and the number of years since publication, authors, participating institutions, or countries involved. Top-cited articles focused on 2 themes: the use of antirejection immunotherapy or biocompatible encapsulations to prolong graft survival, and assessments of the efficacy of islet transplants, in particular, islet allografts.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study can help researchers to identify and decipher the characteristics of top-cited articles in the field of islet transplantation. Just as clinically successful allografts are carried out using the Edmonton protocol, autografts and xenografts should be similarly strengthened to solve problems relating to immune rejection and islet sources, respectively.

Is Article Methodological Quality Associated With Conflicts of Interest?: An Analysis of the Plastic Surgery Literature

PURPOSE

Conflicts of interest (COI) are an emerging area of discussion within the field of plastic surgery. Recently, several reports have found that research studies that disclose COI are associated with publication of positive outcomes. We hypothesize that this association is driven by higher-quality studies receiving industry funding. This study aimed to investigate the association between industry support and study methodological quality.

METHODS

We reviewed all entries in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery, and Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery within a 1-year period encompassing 2013. All clinical research articles were analyzed. Studies were evaluated blindly for methodology quality based on a validated scoring system. An ordinal logistic regression model was used to examine the association between methodology score and COI.

RESULTS

A total of 1474 articles were reviewed, of which 483 met our inclusion criteria. These articles underwent methodological quality scoring. Conflicts of interest were reported in 28 (5.8%) of these articles. After adjusting for article characteristics in the ordinal logistic regression analysis, there was no significant association between articles with COI and higher methodological scores (P = 0.7636).

CONCLUSIONS

Plastic surgery studies that disclose COI are not associated with higher methodological quality when compared with studies that do not disclose COI. These findings suggest that although the presence of COI is associated with positive findings, the association is not shown to be driven by higher-quality studies.

Evidence-Based Medicine in Aesthetic Surgery: The Significance of Level to Aesthetic Surgery

Since its popularization in the 1980s, evidence-based medicine has become the cornerstone of American health care. Many specialties rapidly adapted to the paradigm shift of health care by delivering treatment using the evidence-based guidelines. However, the field of plastic surgery has been slow to implement evidence-based medicine compared with the other specialties because of the challenges of performing randomized controlled trials, such as funding, variability in surgical skills, and difficulty with standardization of techniques. To date, aesthetic surgery has been at the forefront of evidence-based medicine in plastic surgery by having the most randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, a detailed analysis of these studies has not been previously performed. In this article, the level I and II articles of aesthetic surgery are discussed to increase awareness of high-quality evidence-based medicine in aesthetic surgery.

An Analysis of Altmetrics in Emergency Medicine

OBJECTIVES

Alternative-level metrics (Altmetrics) are a new method to assess the sharing and spread of scientific knowledge. The primary objective of this study was to describe the traditional metrics and Altmetric scores of the 50 most frequently cited articles published in emergency medicine (EM) journals. Since many articles related to EM are published in other journals, the secondary aim of this study was to describe the Altmetric scores of the most frequently cited articles relevant to EM in other biomedical journals.

METHODS

A structured search of the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science version of the Science Citation Index Expanded was conducted. The 200 most frequently cited articles in the top 10 EM journals (2011 Journal Citation Report) were identified. The 200 most frequently cited articles from the rest of the medical literature, matching a predefined list of keywords relevant to the specialty of EM, were identified. Two authors reviewed the lists of citations for relevance to EM and a consensus approach was used to arrive at the final lists of the top 50 cited articles. The Altmetric scores for the top 50 cited articles in EM and other journals were determined. Descriptive statistics and Spearman correlation were performed.

RESULTS

The highest Altmetric score for EM articles was 25.0; the mean (±SD) was 1.9 (±5.0). The EM journal with the highest mean article Altmetric score was Resuscitation. The main clinical areas shared for articles from EM articles were trauma (mean ± SD = 11.0 ± 15.6, median = 11.0) and cardiac arrest (mean ± SD = 2.7 ± 5.8, median = 0). The highest Altmetric score for other journals was 176.0 (mean ± SD = 23.3 ± 40.8). The other journal with the highest mean article Altmetric score was the New England Journal of Medicine. The main clinical areas shared for articles were critical care (mean ± SD score = 36.5 ± 47.4, median = 36.5), sepsis (mean ± SD = 24.6 ± 48.8, median = 12.0), cardiology (mean ± SD = 19.2 ± 35.6, median = 7.0), and infectious diseases (mean ± SD = 17.0 ± 12.7, median = 17.0). Spearman correlation demonstrated weakly positive correlation between citation counts and Altmetric scores for EM articles and other journals.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first analysis of Altmetric scores for the top cited articles in EM. We demonstrated that there is a mild correlation between citation counts and Altmetric scores for the top papers in EM and other biomedical journals. We also demonstrated that there is a gap between the sharing of the top articles in EM journals and those related to EM in other biomedical journals. Future research to explore this relationship and its temporal trends will benefit the understanding of the reach and dissemination of EM research within the scientific community and society in general.