ArticleJPRAS open2025
Trends in preservation rhinoplasty publications: A bibliometric analysis of presented data originality.
Article in JPRAS 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recent literature on dorsal preservation rhinoplasty (DPR) has seen a resurgence. This study performs a bibliometric analysis of publications and co-authorships within this research area, considering factors such as gender, country of origin, international collaboration, and the originality of the presented data. Methods: The PubMed-indexed literature on DPR from 2018 to 2024 was extracted and reviewed, limited to English publications. Descriptive statistics were performed regarding the contributors by gender, country, publishing journal, authorship rank, and department of affiliation. Association tests were used to determine the association between the originality of the data presented and the affiliation's country and department. Results: One hundred seventy-five (n=174) articles were co-authored by (n=503) collaborators were included. Of those (75/503, 14.9%) were female physicians. The annual publishing rate on DPR rose from 5 papers in 2019 to 39 in 2024. The most common country in which the first author's affiliation was the United States (136/503, 27.0%), followed by Turkey (102/503, 20.2%). The most frequent department affiliation of the collaborators was Otolaryngology (270/503, 53.7%), followed by Plastic Surgery (178/503, 35.4%). There was a significant association between presenting original data and the country where the research originated ( Conclusions: The resurgence in publications on DPR does not correspond to a major increase in the presentation of original data, which is essential for determining the evidence of this technique. The findings highlight areas for improvement, such as addressing gender disparities and promoting original data presentation, particularly among Otolaryngologists.
Indexed as
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.