ReviewAesthetic plastic surgery2023
Methodological Quality of Open Access Compared to Traditional Journal Publications in the Plastic Surgery Literature.
Review in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Industry sponsorship bias in randomized controlled trials of digital cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia: a meta-research study based on the 2023 Brazilian guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of insomnia in adults.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- TheIndian journal of plastic surgery : official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of India · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe methodological quality of open access studies has long been questioned due to increasing popularity and accessibility. The objective of this study is to compare the methodological quality of open access versus traditional journal publications in the plastic surgery literature.
methodsFour traditional plastic surgery journals with their sister open access journals were chosen. For each of the eight journals, 10 articles were randomly selected for inclusion. Methodological quality was examined using validated instruments. Publication descriptors were compared to methodological quality values using ANOVA. Logistic regression was used to compare quality scores between open access and traditional journals.
resultsThere was a wide distribution of levels of evidence, with a quarter being level one. Regression of non-randomized studies indicated a significantly higher proportion of traditional journal articles were of high methodological quality (89.6%) when compared to open access journals (55.6%; p < 0.05). This difference persisted in three quarter of the sister journal groups. No publication descriptions were associated with methodological quality.
conclusionsMethodological quality scores were higher among traditional access journals. Higher degrees of peer review may be necessary to ensure appropriate methodological quality in open access plastic surgery publications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: 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 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
36997736What 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.