Altmetric

A bibliometric analysis of the 100 most-cited articles in rhinoplasty

File Description SizeFormat 
Accepted Version.pdfAccepted version885.15 kBAdobe PDFDownload
01720096-201607000-00001.pdfPublished version721.37 kBAdobe PDFDownload
Title: A bibliometric analysis of the 100 most-cited articles in rhinoplasty
Author(s): Sinha, Y
Iqbal, FM
Spence, JN
Richard, B
Item Type: Journal Article
Abstract: Introduction: Citation analysis aims to quantify the importance and influence of a published article within its field. We performed a bibliometric analysis to determine the most highly cited articles within rhinoplasty and their impact on current practice. Methods: The 100 most-cited articles relating to rhinoplasty, between and inclusive of January 1864 to September 2015, were extracted from Web of Science in October 2015. Title, source journal, publication year, total citations, average citations/ year, type of article, level of evidence, country of origin, main focus, use of outcome measures, incorporation into “Selected Readings in Plastic Surgery,” and funding status were recorded. Results: The total number of citations per article ranged from 61 to 276 (1.5–12.1 average citations per year). Surgical technique was the focus of 53% of articles, particularly those for reconstruction (75%). The United States produced 72% of articles compared with 8% from the United Kingdom. The top 100 articles were published within 20 journals; “Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons” contributed the most articles (n = 57). None of the articles achieved level 1 or 2 of evidence (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence, 2011), with most achieving level 4 evidence (n = 64). Case-series were the most popular methodology (n = 37). Few articles used validated outcome measures (n = 21). Twenty-nine percent were referenced in “selected readings.” Eighty-nine percent were unfunded studies. Conclusions: These top 100 articles are used in current teaching material and underpin surgical decision making. Developing and using validated objective assessment tools will benefit surgeons, patients, and the greater scientific community in objectively evaluating techniques with the most favorable results.
Publication Date: 22-Jul-2016
Date of Acceptance: 20-May-2016
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/32975
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000000834
ISSN: 2169-7574
Publisher: Wolters Kluwer Health,
Journal / Book Title: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Global Open
Volume: 4
Copyright Statement: © 2016 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. All rights reserved. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.
Publication Status: Published
Article Number: e820
Appears in Collections:Division of Surgery
Faculty of Medicine



Items in Spiral are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Creative Commons