ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
The 100 Most-cited Articles in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Bibliometric Analysis.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. 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.
- 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
- Trends in Imaging Studies for Flap Reconstruction Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Trends in Lower Limb Orthoplastic Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
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
Background: Autologous breast reconstruction has continued to increase in popularity and witnessed significant advancements in aesthetic outcomes, patient satisfaction, and improved quality of life. We performed the first bibliometric analysis focused only on the 100 most-cited autologous breast reconstruction articles to characterize any emerging trends and assess the methodological quality of these studies. Methods: The 100 most-cited articles in autologous breast reconstruction were identified on Web of Science, across all available journals and years. Study details, including the citation count, main subject, and outcome measures, were extracted from each article, and the level of evidence was also assessed. Results: The 100 most-cited articles in autologous breast reconstruction were cited by a total of 21,194 articles. Citation per article ranged significantly from 112 to 1123 (mean, 211.9). Overall, most of the top-cited articles are case reports/series (n = 32, mean citations = 243.2) and cohort studies (n = 30, mean citations = 211.2). This is closely followed by case-control studies (n = 29, mean citations = 183.6). Only four studies achieved level 1 status, underscoring a lack of high-quality methodological research in the field. Most studies (n = 72) highlighted autologous breast reconstruction outcomes, whereas 12 focused on its indications. There were nine studies exploring surgical techniques, and seven studies addressing the autologous breast reconstruction surgical anatomy. Conclusions: Overall, most of the influential articles in autologous breast reconstruction literature are of lower-level evidence. Contemporary research should focus on enhancing the study designs and measure clinical and patient-reported outcomes with validated tools, such as BREAST-Q.
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.