ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Trends in Facial Reanimation Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Facial paralysis profoundly affects physical, psychological, and social well-being. Facial reanimation surgery (FRS) uses various static and dynamic procedures to restore function and appearance. This bibliometric analysis of the top 100 most-cited FRS articles identifies trends, gaps, and methodological quality, offering insights into the field's evolution, guiding future research, and supporting evidence-based clinical practices to enhance patient outcomes. Methods: The top 100 most-cited articles related to FRS were identified through a comprehensive Web of Science search covering publications from 1976 to 2024. Data including citation count, study focus, and Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence (LOEs) were extracted. Results: The most-cited articles on FRS amassed a total of 6872 citations, involving 5601 patients, with citations per article ranging from 31 to 535. Most studies were LOE 3 (n = 52), with fewer at higher evidence levels (LOEs 1 and 2). Surgical technique was the primary focus (n = 65), whereas validated patient-reported outcome measures appeared in only 8 studies. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the need for better research methods and wider use of validated patient-reported outcome measures in FRS studies. Standardized tools and high-quality, multicenter research are crucial for improving patient care. This analysis offers insights into FRS evolution and recommends collaborative, interdisciplinary studies to advance the field.
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.