Plastic Journals Research Articles

A Bibliometric Analysis of the 100 Most-Cited Articles on Otoplasty.

A bibliometric analysis was conducted in April 2024, to review the current trends in otoplasty. It involved literature search on Scopus database for original articles using the query term "otoplasty" and "pinnaplasty", without restricting publication dates or selecting journals in the database. The top 100 articles with the highest citations were reviewed. Bibliometric analysis was performed using Scimago journal impact factor. The screening was done using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA) guidelines to extract the top 100 most cited articles in otoplasty. We excluded articles not focused on otoplasty, those involving other surgical procedures, and non-English articles. Scopus and manual screening were used together to perform citation analysis of selected articles. Mean values were calculated for the number of citations and citations per year. Of the 951 studies identified, 100 (10.5%) were analyzed in detail. The studies were published between 1941-2024, with a mean of 36 ± 23.7 citations per paper. The journal "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery" reported the highest number (23[23%]) of articles, followed by "Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery" with 13% (n=13) articles. The highest number of articles originated from the United States (38%, n=38), followed by United Kingdom (15%, n=15). Our bibliometric analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the landscape of otoplasty research, highlighting key publications, authors, and journals. This study contributes to the understanding of the evolution and impact of otoplasty literature, laying the groundwork for further research and innovation in this field.

Exploring the evolution of facial feminization and masculinization surgery: a bibliometric analysis and visualization study

BackgroundThis study aims to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the current literature related to facial feminization surgery (FFS) and facial masculinization surgery (FMS) to understand the patterns, trends, and evolution of research topics. In addition, it aims to objectively identify the important articles that constitute the primary backbone of the FFS/FMS literature and provide a resource for education and new studies in this emerging field.ResultsUsing the principles of the Leiden Manifesto, 384 publications from the Web of Science from 1987 to 2023 were analyzed. The analysis included cross-country collaboration, keyword trends, affiliations, co-citation networks, and clustering. The results showed an increasing trend in FFS/FMS publications, with the USA leading in both publications (n = 238) and citations (n = 2420). The most cited journal was the Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. The results indicate a high growth rate, with an H-index of 34 and an average citation of 11.41 per article. Co-occurrence analysis revealed evolving keywords such as “forehead” (n = 52) and “quality of life” (n = 44). The timeline view illustrated the terms reflecting current areas of interest such as #patient satisfaction and #gender-affirming care.ConclusionThe study reveals the influence of countries, institutions, authors, and emerging trends, supporting the anticipation that FFS/FMS will be a critical field of study in the future. The findings contribute to understanding the global landscape of FFS/FMS research, facilitating informed decision-making for researchers, and clinicians in the field of maxillofacial surgery.

Using the Disruptive Score to Identify Publications That Changed Plastic Surgery Practice.

The impact of academic publications is often characterized by the total number of future citations. However, this metric does not adequately characterize the true impact in terms of changing practices or paradigms. A new metric called the "disruption score" (DS) has been developed and validated in nonsurgical publications. This study aims to use the DS to identify the most disruptive publications in plastic surgery.The DS, a ratio of 2 numbers, varies between -1 and +1. Scores closer to -1 are developing papers that summarize the known literature while papers closer to +1 are disruptive-they result in a paradigm shift in the field of study. A search was performed for all articles from 1954 to 2014 in the following journals: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery; Aesthetic Surgery Journal; Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery; Annals of Plastic Surgery; Aesthetic Plastic Surgery; Clinics in Plastic Surgery; and Plastic Surgery. The disruptive score was calculated for each article.The top 100 papers ranked by DS were examined and any editorials/viewpoints, publications with less than 26 citations, or less than 3 references were excluded because of their subjective nature and smaller academic contribution. The remaining 64 publications were analyzed for topic, study type, and citation count. A total of 32,622 articles were found with a DS range from 0.385 to 0.923. The mean score of the top 64 articles was 0.539 with an average citation count of 195 and 9 references. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery had the most disruptive papers with 50. There were no randomized controlled trials with a majority of the studies being technical descriptions or case series. There are many ways to measure academic success, but there are fewer ways to measure the impact of academic contributions. The DS is a novel measurement that can demonstrate when an article results in a paradigm shift as opposed to just total citation count. When applied to the plastic surgery literature, the DS demonstrates that technical innovation and creativity are the most academically impactful. Future evaluations of academic success should include the DS to measure the quality of academic contributions.

Propensity Scoring in Plastic Surgery Research: An Analysis and Best Practice Guide.

Summary:Randomized controlled trials, though considered the gold standard in clinical research, are often not feasible in plastic surgery research. Instead, researchers rely heavily on observational studies, leading to potential issues with confounding and selection bias. Propensity scoring—a statistical technique that estimates a patient’s likelihood of having received the exposure of interest—can improve the comparability of study groups by either guiding the selection of study participants or generating a covariate that can be adjusted for in multivariate analyses. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive review of research articles published in three major plastic surgery journals (Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, & Aesthetic Surgery, and Annals of Plastic Surgery) to determine the utilization of propensity scoring methods in plastic surgery research from August 2018 to August 2020. We found that propensity scoring was used in only eight (0.8%) of 971 research articles, none of which fully reported all components of their propensity scoring methodology. We provide a brief overview of propensity score techniques and recommend guidelines for accurate reporting of propensity scoring methods for plastic surgery research. Improved understanding of propensity scoring may encourage plastic surgery researchers to incorporate the method in their own work and improve plastic surgeons’ ability to understand and analyze future research studies that utilize propensity score methods.

An Evaluation of Racial Diversity in Craniofacial Surgery Literature.

Implicit bias can lead to discrimination of certain populations within healthcare. Representation in medical literature is no exception and it is hypothesized that images with lighter skin tone are more prevalent than darker skin tones in craniofacial literature. Clinical photographs and figure graphics from 5 journals were examined for pre-defined years. Annals of Plastic Surgery, Aesthetic Surgery Journal, Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery journals were reviewed. All craniofacial-focused articles containing at least one color image depicting human skin were included. 10,477 images and 627 graphics were evaluated using the Fitzpatrick scale as a guide. Most journals trended toward broader inclusion of nonwhite photographs and graphics over time. In 2016, 47% of articles published in Journal of Craniofacial Surgery included nonwhite images compared to Annals of Plastic Surgery (16%), Aesthetic Surgery Journal (40%), Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (25%), and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (7%). Comparison of domestic and international publications demonstrated that author's country of origin impacted the percentage of nonwhite clinical photographs for most journals. Comparisons of publications by country demonstrated increased diversity in Asia and the Middle East for clinical photographs but not graphics. The frequency of nonwhite figure graphics was staggeringly low, identified in only 18 articles across all journals and years. Craniofacial literature more commonly reflects white skin tones. The trend over time suggests increasing inclusion of racial diversity in clinical photographs; however, figure graphics remain less racially diverse. Time, country of origin, and publishing journal appear to play a role.

1023 The Role of Social Media in Disseminating Plastic Surgery Research: The Relationship Between Citations, Altmetrics and Article Characteristics

Abstract Background Social media (SoMe) enable the dissemination of content immediately and directly to interested end-users. Alternative metrics (altmetrics) are non-traditional bibliometrics which describe the exposure and impact of an article on freely available platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. Altmetrics within days of publication are associated with ultimate citation counts in various medical disciplines, except plastic surgery which represents the rationale for this study. Method Altmetric explorer was used to extract altmetrics and citation rates for articles published during 2018 in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS), the Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, the Annals of Plastics Surgery and Plastic Surgery. Multivariable negative binomial regression was used to estimate the relationship between citations and predictors (presented as the incidence rate ratio, IRR with 95% confidence interval, CI). Results Overall, 1215 articles were captured. On average, articles published in PRS were cited nearly five times as often as articles published elsewhere (adjusted IRR 4.77 [95% CI 2.36, 9.62]). Overall, SoMe mentions were positively associated with citation rates (adjusted IRR 1.01 [95% CI 1.01, 1.1]); marginal analysis showed that 45 mentions translated to one extra citation. Conclusions Dissemination of plastic surgery research through SoMe channels are associated with significant improvements in short term citations rates.

Bibliometric analysis of the top 100 most cited articles on craniosynostosis.

Craniosynostosis is the premature closure of cranial sutures and it continues to be a therapeutic challenge due to the diversity and complexity of the syndrome. Bibliometric analysis is a study of ranking citations and exploring the most impactful articles in a respective discipline. It also demonstrates the chronological trends of publications. In May 2020, we performed a title-specific search of the Scopus database using "craniosynostosis" as our query term without publication date restrictions. The top 100 articles in craniosynostosis were retrieved and analyzed. The top 100 most-cited articles in craniosynostosis received a total 13,826 citations, and an average of 138 citations per paper. The publication dates ranged from 1920 to 2015, with a peak period of top publications between 1996 and 2005. The most common category is clinical, followed by neurogenetics. The top cited article received 540 citation counts and 19.29 citations per year. The USA was the most contributing country to the list. The Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery published the largest number of top cited articles. Neurosurgery as a specialty contributed to most articles in the list (27 articles). The institute who contributed the most was the Assistance Publique Hopitaux Paris. Bibliometric analysis in craniosynostosis revealed major trend changes of research over the years, with a focus on neurogenetics and the different types of surgical corrections. The current collection of highly cited publications may assist physicians in gaining a better understanding of the evidence-based approach in craniosynostosis.

The Current Status of the Autologous Fat Grafting for Pediatric Craniofacial Patients.

Since its first introduction, autologous fat grafting (AFG) has undergone multiple refinements and has become a common treatment option within plastic surgery. It is a safe, quick, economical, and minimally invasive method for volume augmentation and is finding its own indications in the pediatric craniofacial surgery patients. Because there is currently a paucity of literature regarding the use of AFG in the pediatric population compared with the adults, the authors performed a systematic review of the literature using PubMed, Cochrane Library databases, and the Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery using the terms of fat grafting/lipofilling, fat grafting, and craniofacial surgery to include articles that contained pediatric patients. While reviewing AFG in the pediatric craniofacial patients, indications, technique, and challenges were specifically evaluated and an algorithm of approach was proposed. In current practice, the choice of microvascular free flap versus AFG is one of the surgeon preferences on a case-by-case basis. With the low complication rate and ease of use, selection of AFG for the repair of soft tissue defects in pediatric craniofacial patients is increasing and may come to surpass use of traditional invasive methods such as free flaps. It should also be considered as a useful adjunct to other concurrent invasive procedures, that is, bony adjustments.

Levels of Evidence in Plastic Surgery Research: A 10-Year Bibliometric Analysis of 18,889 Publications From 4 Major Journals.

Improving the quality of research published in plastic surgery literature has been recognized as a difficult and time-intensive process. Despite significant progress over the last decade, leaders in the field continue to advocate for higher-quality studies to better inform clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate and analyze trends in the levels of evidence (LOEs) of the plastic surgery literature over the last decade in 4 major journals. After systematic review of all articles published between 2008 and 2017 in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery, and Aesthetic Surgery Journal (ASJ), included articles were assigned an LOE and classified according to study design and category. In total, 8211 articles were included. Case series and reports represented 36.1% and 13.6% of studies, respectively. Additionally, 27.2% were retrospective cohort studies, 8.2% prospective cohort studies, 3.9% systematic reviews, and 2.9% randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Overall, the percentage of Level I/II studies has increased from 10.9% in 2008 to 17.3% in 2017. ASJ published the greatest proportion of Level I/II studies (23.2%) and RCTs (5.1%) of all the journals. There were significant differences in the distribution of Level I/II studies by journal (P < 0.001) and category (P < 0.001). Over the past decade, plastic surgery journals have published higher-quality research and a significantly greater proportion of Level I and II studies. The field must continue to strive for robust study designs, while also recognizing the importance of lower-LOE research.

Publication Rates and Author Characteristics From 3 Plastic Surgery Journals in 2006 and 2016.

Areas of surgical care in which, traditionally, plastic surgeons were exclusively involved are now routinely offered by other surgical specialists. Whether this shift in clinical responsibilities influenced publication rates of plastic surgeons remains unknown. The current article investigates the proportion of contributions in plastic surgery journals originating from authors with a plastic surgery background as well as publication rates and author demographics. A cross-sectional sample study of every publication originating from Annals of Plastic Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery was performed for 2006 and 2016. Data about the articles' methodological design and branch of plastic surgery as well as authors' country of origin, educational degree and specialty training were analyzed. From 1721 publications included, head and neck reconstruction was the branch of plastic surgery with the highest number of publications at 18% and most articles (30%) were retrospective cohort studies. From 3381 authors analyzed, a significant proportion originated from United States (34%). More than 85% of authors were physicians as opposed to other health care professionals. The specialty with the highest representation was plastic surgery at 72%, but the proportion decreased in all 3 journals by a mean rate of 3.8% in 2016. A slight decrease in publication rates from plastic surgeons occurred in Annals of Plastic Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from 2006 to 2016. Publications rates and author characteristics in plastic surgery journals provide valuable insight on plastic surgeons' contribution to contemporary scientific literature.

Plastic and reconstructive surgical research in Australia and New Zealand: A bibliometric analysis

Background: Bibliometrics is the analysis of research produced by individuals and institutions. While previous analyses have assessed sub-specialty fields, as well as contributions of individual countries to the plastic surgical literature, no bibliometric analyses to date have measured the contribution of plastic surgeons from Australia and New Zealand.Methods: Plastic surgery journals with the 15 highest impact factors were identified. Total publications in a ten-year period from October 2007 to September 2017 by Australian and New Zealand Plastic Surgeons were recorded, as were h-indices for all surgeons.Results: 588 articles were published by 498 surgeons, with the largest numbers in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (142), Burns (133), and the Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (112). Mean h-index for Associate Professors was 9.29, and for Professors was 17.17.Conclusion: Australian and New Zealand plastic surgeons continue to be actively involved in world-class research and innovation. The volume and quantity of research produced supports the development of an Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery.

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

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. 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. 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). 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.

Trends, Frequency, and Nature of Surgeon-Reported Conflicts of Interest in Plastic Surgery.

The purpose of this study was to identify types and trends in industry sponsorship of plastic surgery research since the establishment of conflict-of-interest reporting policies in plastic surgery. The authors analyzed the frequency and types of self-reported conflicts of interest in the plastic surgery literature since the adoption of reporting policies in 2007. All original articles that met the authors' inclusion criteria and were published in the following three journals from 2008 to 2013 were included: Annals of Plastic Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, and Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine what study-specific variables were associated with conflict-of-interest disclosures. A total of 3722 articles were analyzed. The incidence of conflicts of interest increased from 14 percent in 2008 to 24 percent in 2009. However, thereafter, the incidence of conflicts of interest decreased steadily from 21 percent in 2010 to 9 percent in 2013. Furthermore, the authors' analysis revealed that from 2008 to 2013, industry decreased direct research support but steadily increased the rate of consultantships (p < 0.001). A multivariate regression analysis revealed that, after adjusting for potential confounders, self-reported conflicts of interest have decreased since 2008 (p = 0.03) and the prevalence of conflicts of interest differs by plastic surgery subspecialty (p < 0.0001), country of origin (p < 0.0001), and journal of publication (p = 0.05). If self-reporting of conflicts of interest is assumed to be accurate, the number of surgeon-reported conflicts of interest in plastic surgery declined overall. Although the absolute number of consultantships did not change, the rate of consultantships rather than direct research support increased over this period.

Citation Rate Predictors in the Plastic Surgery Literature

The purpose of this study is to determine and characterize the scientific and nonscientific factors that influence the rate of article citation in the field of plastic surgery. Cross-sectional study. We reviewed all entries in Annals of Plastic Surgery and Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007; and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2008. All scientific articles were analyzed and several article characteristics were extracted. The number of citations at 5 years was collected as the outcome variable. A multivariable analysis was performed to determine which variables were associated with higher citations rates. A total of 2456 articles were identified of which only 908 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most studies were publications in the fields of reconstructive (26.3%) or pediatric/craniofacial (17.6%) surgery. The median number of citations 5 years from publication was 8. In the multivariable analysis, factors associated with higher citations rates were subspecialty field (p = 0.0003), disclosed conflict of interest (p = 0.04), number of authors (p = 0.04), and journal (p = 0.02). We have found that higher level of evidence (or other study methodology factors) is not associated with higher citation rates. Instead, conflict of interest, subspecialty topic, journal, and number of authors are strong predictors of high citation rates in plastic surgery.

Authorship Proliferation in Hand Surgery Research: How Many Hand Surgeons Does it Take to Write a Research Article?

Dear Sir, Authorship is the currency of academic surgeons [1]. Research publications are the principal metric of academic success, which in turn are linked with scholarly achievement and academic prestige. Reported is a dramatic expansion of authorship in biomedical and medical research [2]. We performed an observational analysis on authorship trends in the six highest impact factors journals publishing hand surgery research over a twenty-year period, including the years 1993, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2013. All original hand surgery research articles were assessed from the following journals; Plastics and Reconstructive Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Journal of Hand Surgery -European Volume, Journal of Hand Surgery-American Volume, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and The Bone & Joint Journal. After reviewing 1221 articles, we identified a constant proliferation in authorship of hand surgery research, over the 20 year period, from 3.05 to 4.33 authors per article (p = 0.021) (Fig. 1). The proportion of single-author articles also decreased significantly over this period, from 32 % in 1993 to 10.7 % in 2013 (p = 0.038). This 41.9 % increase in authorship in hand surgery research has been mirrored in other surgery specialities including neurosurgery [3] and orthopaedics [4]. Fig. 1 Trend in no. of authors per article over 20 years (1993–2013) A need to improve research design, use of advanced statistics and the requirement of multicentre participation to increase study populations partially justifies this trend. We believe a rise in honorary authorship, a type of illegitimate authorship, possibility also explains this substantial proliferation. Honorary authorship, whereby acknowledgment is not a reflection of scientific contribution, distorts the fundamental integrity of scientific publications. The adoption of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) author’s criteria [5] and statements of contributorship in manuscripts by journals, have done little to curtail this problem [6]. So what else can be done to limit this undesirable trend? Firstly, we believe, authors must uphold a personal responsibility in order to maintain their ethical probity regarding contributions to research, in line with scientific codes of conduct and ICMJE guidelines. Secondly, changes made by the editors of journals including increased credit for acknowledgements or capping the number of authors per publication, potentially could limit authorship proliferation. Regardless of the manner, action is necessary to deter the detrimental rise of illegitimacies in authorship, which is the key to a healthy academic environment.

Abstract: Thin Patients are at Higher Risk for Venous Congestion During DIEP Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION: Venous congestion occurs in 2–15% of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps and often requires superficial inferior epigastric vein (SIEV) salvage.1,2 We previously showed thicker suprascarpal fat pads (>23 mm) are associated with increased SIEV caliber.3 We hypothesize that patients with thicker suprascarpal fat pads have a dominant superficial venous system and are more likely to suffer venous congestion. METHODS: An IRB-approved retrospective study was performed at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell. Subjects included female patients who underwent unilateral or bilateral DIEP flap reconstruction from 2011- 2015. Radiographic measurements of suprascarpal fat pad thickness and SIEV diameter were collected per hemi-abdomen from pre-operative abdominal CT angiogram (CTA) imaging. Clinical outcomes recorded included: intra-operative venous congestion and SIEV usage. Statistical analysis explored if suprascarpal fat pad thickness was associated with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: 94 patients underwent 164 DIEP flaps. Mean suprascarpal fat pad thickness was 20.7mm ± 10.8 (4.9–65.4) and mean SIEV diameter was 2.8mm ± 0.7 (1.5–5.7). Five (3.0%) flaps exhibited venous congestion, with three (1.8%) requiring intra-operative SIEV salvage. All four cases of venous congestion in patients with pre-operative CTA occurred in flaps with suprascarpal fat pad thickness less than 18mm (p=0.041). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significantly increased risk of venous congestion with thinner suprascarpal fat pads (<18mm), suggesting that venous congestion is not related to superficial draining system dominance or increased SIEV caliber. We recommend SIEV dissection with suprascarpal fat pad thickness <18 mm. DISCLOSURE/FINANCIAL SUPPORT:None of the Authors has a financial interest in any of the products, devices or drugs mentioned in the manuscript. REFERENCES: 1. Sbitany H, Mirzabeigi MN, Kovach SJ, et al. Strategies for recognizing and managing intraoperative venous congestion in abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconst Surg 129(4):809–815. 2012. 2. Granzow JW, Levine JL, Chiu ES, Allen RJ. Breast reconstruction with the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap: History and an update on current technique. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery 59:571–579, 2006. 3. Bast J, Pitcher AA, Small K, Otterburn DM. Suprascarpal fat pad thickness may predict venous drainage patterns in abdominal wall flaps. Microsurgery 2016;36(2):99–103.

The Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Plastic Surgery: Are They All Created Equal?

Recently, several studies have demonstrated that articles that disclose conflicts of interests (COI) are associated with publication of positive results. The purpose of this study was to learn more about the different types of COI as they relate to the general topic of COI in plastic surgery. Specifically, we aimed to examine whether different types of COI are more likely than others to be associated with the presentation of positive findings. We reviewed all original articles in Annals of Plastic Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery, and Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2013. All scientific articles were analyzed, and several article characteristics were extracted. Disclosed COI were categorized into the following categories: consultant/employee, royalties/stock options, and research support. The findings reported in each article abstract were blindly graded as reporting a positive, negative, neutral, or not applicable result. A multivariable analysis was performed to determine whether an association existed between certain types of COI and publication of positive conclusions. A total of 3124 articles were identified of which 1185 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Financial COI were reported in 153 studies (12.9%). The most common type of COI was "research support" (7.3%), whereas the least common was "royalties/stock options" (1.2%). Rates of different types of COI varied significantly by plastic surgery subspecialty field (P < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, authors who disclosed COI related to research support, consultant/employee, and royalties/stock options were 1.31, 6.62, and 8.72 times more likely, respectively, to publish positive findings when compared with authors that disclosed no COI after correcting for potential confounding factors. However, consultancy/employee status was the only COI category statistically associated with publication of positive results (P < 0.001). Self-reported COI are uncommon in plastic surgery research. Our results provide evidence that certain types of financial COI are more likely than others to be associated with the presentation of positive findings. This analysis suggests that certain investigators may be more biased, consciously or unconsciously, by the type of financial benefit offered by industry.

Trends in the Level of Evidence in Clinical Hand Surgery Research.

The application of evidence-based medicine (EBM) to the practice of hand surgery has been limited. Production of high-quality research is an integral component of EBM. With considerable improvements in the quality evidence in both orthopedic and plastic and reconstructive surgery, it is imperative that hand surgery research emulates this trend. A systematic review was performed on all hand surgery articles published in 6 journals over a 20-year period. The journals included Plastic and Reconstruction Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Journal of Hand Surgery-European Volume, Journal of Hand Surgery-American Volume, Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, and the Bone & Joint Journal. The level of evidence of each article was determined using the Oxford level of evidence. The quality of methodology of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using Jadad scale. Statistical analysis involved chi-squares and Student t test (P < .05). A total of 972 original hand surgery research articles were reviewed. There was a significant increase in the average level of evidence of articles published between1993 and 2013. High-quality evidence only accounted for 11.2% of evidence published, with a significant increase over the study period (P = 0.001). Quantitative evaluation of the 26 published RCTs, using Jadad scale, revealed a progressive improvement in study design from 0.3 in 1993 to 3.33 in 2013. Hand surgery research has mirrored trends seen in other surgical specialties, with a significant increase in quality of evidence over time. Yet, high-quality evidence still remains infrequent.

The Irish contribution to the plastic surgery literature: 21 years of publications.

The Republic of Ireland has always had an influence on medicine and has produced many renowned doctors who have helped shape its history. Furthermore, many clinical articles that have originated from Ireland have changed clinical practice throughout the world. The Irish have also had an impact on the plastic surgery literature yet it has never specifically been analyzed before. The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze all papers that have originated from the plastic surgery units in the Republic of Ireland in the medical literature over the past 21 years. Twenty-four well-known plastic surgery, hand surgery and burns journals were selected for this study. By utilizing Scopus, the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature, we analyzed each of our chosen 24 journals looking for Irish publications. Each paper was examined for article type, authorship, year of publication, institution of origin and level of evidence. Papers from the Republic of Ireland were published in 20 of the 24 journals over the past 21 years. A total of 245 articles from Ireland were published in the plastic surgery, hand surgery and burns literature over the 21-year period. Of these, 111 were original articles and 73 were case reports. The institution that published the most papers over the past 21 years was University Hospital Galway (66 publications) followed by Cork University Hospital with 54 papers. The journal with the most Irish articles was the Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery with 56 papers. 2014 was the year with the most publications (28 papers). Authorship numbers also increased over time as the average number of authors in 1994 was 3.5, whereas it was 5.54 in 2014. The number of publications per year continues to increase along with authorship numbers. This mirrors the trend in other specialties. Publications are now no longer required for selection on to a higher surgical training scheme. There is now a fear that the academic output of trainees will decrease as a consequence. To prevent this, each unit must actively support and encourage research activity with their trainees.

Highest Impact Articles in Microsurgery: A Citation Analysis.

Microsurgery has developed significantly since the inception of the first surgical microscope. There have been few attempts to describe "classic" microsurgery articles. In this study citation analysis was done to identify the most highly cited clinical and basic science articles published in five peer-reviewed plastic surgery journals. Thomson/Reuters web of knowledge was used to identify the most highly cited microsurgery articles from five journals: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery, and Microsurgery. Articles were identified and sorted based on the number of citations and citations per year. The 50 most cited clinical and basic science articles were identified. For clinical articles, number of total citations ranged from 120 to 691 (mean, 212.38) and citations per year ranged from 30.92 to 3.05 (mean, 9.33). The most common defect site was the head and neck (n = 15, 30%), and flaps were perforator and muscle/musculocutaneous flaps (n = 10 each, 20%, respectively). For basic science articles, number of citations ranged from 71 to 332 (mean, 130.82) and citations per year ranged from 2.20 to 11.07 (mean, 5.27). There were 27 animal, 21 cadaveric, and 2 combined studies. The most highly cited microsurgery articles are a direct reflection of the educational and clinical trends. Awareness of the most frequently cited articles may serve as a basis for core knowledge in the education of plastic surgery trainees. III.