ArticleJournal of reconstructive microsurgery2016
Breast Microsurgery in Plastic Surgery Literature: A 21-Year Analysis of Publication Trends.
Article in Journal of reconstructive microsurgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Top 100 Most Cited Articles in Reconstructive Microsurgery: Identifying Evidence Gaps and Research Trends for Future Investigation: A Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis.Archives of plastic surgery · 2026Article
- The 100 Most-cited Articles in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Bibliometric Analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Citation Analysis in Breast Reconstruction Publications Between 2000 and 2010.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction Microsurgical reconstruction of the breast represents an area of continual evolution, as new autologous flaps are introduced and principles are refined. This progression can be demonstrated by bibliometric analysis of the scientific literature. Methods The top 10 plastic surgery journals were determined by impact factor (IF). Each issue of every journal from 1993 to 2013 was accessed directly, and all articles discussing microsurgery on the female breast were classified by authors' geographic location, study design, and level of evidence (LOE, I-V). The productivity index and productivity share of each geographic region was calculated based on number of articles published and IF. Results A total of 706 breast microsurgery articles were analyzed. There was a significant increase in microsurgical breast research (p < 0.01), with an average 33.6 ± 31.1 articles per year and a mean increase of 4.4 articles per year. Most research was of lower LOE, with level I constituting 0.14% and level II constituting 5.21% of all articles. United States contributed the most research with 336.4 articles, followed by Western Europe with 242.2. However, Western Europe experienced the greatest increase in productivity share, with + 0.50 ± 0.29 growth, while United States demonstrated the greatest decrease in productivity share with - 1.23 ± 0.31 growth. Among autologous flaps, transverse rectus abdominis muscle research had the greatest yearly publication volume until 2002, when overtaken by deep inferior epigastric perforator flap research. Conclusion Over the 21-year study period, the United States not only contributed the greatest volume of research on female breast microsurgery but also demonstrated the greatest decline in research productivity. Efforts should be made to increase the LOE in breast microsurgery research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.