Levels of Evidence in the Plastic Surgery Literature: A Citation Analysis of the Top 50 'Classic' Papers
Joyce KM., Joyce CW., Kelly JC., Kelly JL., Carroll SM.
Laboratory Study, published in Arch Plast Surg (2015) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Laboratory Study
- Journal
- Arch Plast Surg (2015)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 26217560
- PMCID
- PMC4513048
- DOI
- 10.5999/aps.2015.42.4.411
- Citations
- 24
Abstract (original English)
Background The plastic surgery literature is vast, consisting of a plethora of diverse articles written by a myriad of illustrious authors. Despite this considerable archive of published material, it remains nebulous as to which precise papers have had the greatest impact on our specialty. The aim of this study was to identify the most cited papers in the plastic surgery literature and perform a citation analysis paying particular attention to the evidence levels of the clinical studies. Methods We identified the 50 most cited papers published in the 20 highest impact plastic surgery journals through the Web of Science. The articles were ranked in order of number of citations acquired and level of evidence assessed. Results The top 50 cited papers were published in six different journals between the years 1957 and 2007. Forty-two of the papers in the top 50 were considered as level IV or V evidence. No level I or II evidence was present in the top 50 list. The average level of evidence of the top 50 papers was 4.28. Conclusions In the plastic surgery literature, no positive correlation exists between a high number of citations and a high level of evidence. Anatomical reconstructive challenges tend to be the main focus of plastic surgery rather than pathologic diseases and consequently, papers with lower levels of evidence are relatively more valuable in plastic surgery than man
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.