ReviewAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2023
A Bibliometric Analysis of the Highest Cited Rhytidectomy Literature.
Review in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bibliometric Analysis of the Highest Cited Cosmetic Upper Facial Plastic Surgery Articles Over 50 Years.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2025Review
- The 100 Most-cited Articles in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Bibliometric Analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this bibliometric analysis, we investigated the top 100 most cited articles on rhytidectomy, a prevalent cosmetic surgical procedure in the United States of America. Using data from Web of Science spanning from 1900 to 2021, we found these papers collectively cited 7737 times, with individual citation counts ranging from 277 to 37 (mean 77). Notably, the majority of these papers (58 out of 100) were categorized as Level of Evidence 5, indicating a prevalence of expert opinions, anatomical studies, and narrative reviews. Interestingly, none of the papers achieved Level 1 status, underscoring a lack of high-quality research in the field. The primary focus of these papers was on operative techniques (48 papers) and surgical anatomy of the face (20 papers). Only 10 articles incorporated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), but none utilized validated scales. This analysis highlights the urgent need for improved research methodologies in rhytidectomy studies, emphasizing the necessity for rigorous, high-quality research, and the implementation of validated rhytidectomy-specific PROMs. Level of Evidence 3:
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.