ArticleArchives of plastic surgery2026
The Top 100 Most Cited Articles in Reconstructive Microsurgery: Identifying Evidence Gaps and Research Trends for Future Investigation: A Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis.
Article in Archives of plastic surgery, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reconstructive microsurgery restores form and function after trauma, oncological resection, or congenital deformities. This study provides a bibliometric analysis of the most cited articles, identifies evidence gaps, and proposes future research priorities. Methods: The top 100 most cited articles were retrieved from Scopus on January 1, 2025, and analyzed for publication trends, authorship, themes, and impact metrics using VOSviewer and R Bibliometrix. Results: From 57,925 articles, the top 100 were selected (mean citations: 251.99 ± 207.78), predominantly in Q1 journals. Head and neck reconstruction dominated (49.5%). Hidalgo D.A. was the most frequent author, and the United States contributed nearly half of all articles. Most provided Level III-IV evidence (38.14% each); none met Level I criteria. Annual citation rates increased from 6.87 (1970s) to 16.32 (2010s). Four evolutionary phases were identified: Technical feasibility, clinical refinement, evidence-based optimization, and emerging interdisciplinary standardization. Conclusions: Three critical findings emerged: (1) No Level I studies and only 7.22% Level II evidence; (2) geographic concentration, with nearly half of contributions from the United States; and (3) a thematic shift from anatomical descriptions toward outcomes research. These findings provide a roadmap for advancing the field.
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.