Arch Plast Surg.  2015 Jul;42(4):411-418. 10.5999/aps.2015.42.4.411.

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

• Joyce KM
• Joyce CW
• Kelly JC
• Kelly JL
• Carroll SM

• KMID: 1950716
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2015.42.4.411

Abstract

BACKGROUND
The plastic surgery literature is vast, consisting of a plethora of diverse articles written by a myriad of illustrious authors. Despite this considerable archive of published material, it remains nebulous as to which precise papers have had the greatest impact on our specialty. The aim of this study was to identify the most cited papers in the plastic surgery literature and perform a citation analysis paying particular attention to the evidence levels of the clinical studies.
METHODS
We identified the 50 most cited papers published in the 20 highest impact plastic surgery journals through the Web of Science. The articles were ranked in order of number of citations acquired and level of evidence assessed.
RESULTS
The top 50 cited papers were published in six different journals between the years 1957 and 2007. Forty-two of the papers in the top 50 were considered as level IV or V evidence. No level I or II evidence was present in the top 50 list. The average level of evidence of the top 50 papers was 4.28.
CONCLUSIONS
In the plastic surgery literature, no positive correlation exists between a high number of citations and a high level of evidence. Anatomical reconstructive challenges tend to be the main focus of plastic surgery rather than pathologic diseases and consequently, papers with lower levels of evidence are relatively more valuable in plastic surgery than many other specialties.

Keyword

Bibliometrics; Classical article; Plastic surgery

MeSH Terms

Archives
Bibliometrics
Surgery, Plastic*