Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39867419›Full record

ReviewAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2025

Bibliometric Analysis of the Highest Cited Cosmetic Upper Facial Plastic Surgery Articles Over 50 Years.

Nitin Rangu, Evan Pistone, Jeremy Tan, Thai Do

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Evan Pistone
Jeremy Tan
Thai Do

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this bibliometric analysis, the authors analyze the top 100 (T100) most cited articles on cosmetic upper facial plastic surgery. Throughout this study, the objective of the authors is to delineate the trends in cosmetic upper facial surgeries to identify prevailing techniques, emerging trends, and potential areas of future investigation. The articles were indexed from the Web of Science database and were extracted in a double-blinded manner by 2 independent graders. The search phrase used covered a wide range of cosmetic upper facial plastic surgeries, of which a short sample is included: ("cosmetic*" AND "bleph*") OR ("cosmetic*" AND "upper eyelid blepharoplasty") OR ("cosmetic*" AND "lower eyelid blepharoplasty"). In their statistical analysis of the number of citations received in each article in the T100, the authors reveal an average of 55.1 citations (a standard deviation of 38.7). Surgical methods were the most commonly cited unique study area, with 30% of the T100, followed by botulinum toxin and complication management with 29% and 15% of the T100, respectively. The unique study area with the highest average citations received was botulinum toxin, with an average of 64.7 citations. Invasive procedures made up 55% of the T100 articles. The authors found that the late 1990s and 2000s were a burgeoning period of growth in this field and highlight the evolution of many contemporary popular cosmetic procedures over time. Particularly, a growth in minimally invasive procedures was noted, with noted impacts in aesthetics training and research focus. Level of Evidence 4 Therapeutic:

Identifiers

PMID39867419
PMCPMC11758881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.