Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Plast Surg 2023; 56(02): 118-123
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1761178
Original Article

Top 50 Most-Cited Publications on Blepharoplasty Surgery Between 2015 and 2022: From a Current Altmetric Perspective of Research Impact

Cem Evereklioglu 
1   Department of Ophthalmology, Division of Oculoplastic, Orbital, and Lacrimal Surgery, Erciyes University Medical Faculty, Kayseri, Turkey
,
Hidayet Sener 
1   Department of Ophthalmology, Division of Oculoplastic, Orbital, and Lacrimal Surgery, Erciyes University Medical Faculty, Kayseri, Turkey
,
Fatih Horozoglu
1   Department of Ophthalmology, Division of Oculoplastic, Orbital, and Lacrimal Surgery, Erciyes University Medical Faculty, Kayseri, Turkey
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Blepharoplasty is one of the most-performed esthetic operations, and social media platforms have become an influential tool for distributing scientific information. Because the internet has gained popularity among medical experts and surgeons to connect with the public, we aimed to evaluate the altmetric–bibliometric analysis of the top 50 most-cited articles on blepharoplasty surgery between 2015 and 2022 and assess correlations with various metrics.

Methods “Blepharoplasty” was searched using the WoS database, and the altmetric score was obtained. Co-authors, keywords, country of authors, and cited journal network map analysis were created using VOSviewer for the 485 publications retrieved. The articles' focus was examined quantitatively and the most prolific parameters were identified.

Results The most research was performed by the USA, the most productive institution was the “University of California System,” and the most prolific author was “Wonn CH.” The number of citations ranged from 37 to 9, and altmetric attention scores ranged from 54 to 0. The most articles and citations peaked in 2021. Altmetric and Twitter scores were moderately correlated with journal metrics but there were no correlations with citation counts.

Conclusion The first comprehensive altmetric analysis on blepharoplasty surgery offers new guidelines for upcoming articles by demonstrating the recent investigation trends, prolific parameters, and zones with potential for the public's attention and education, providing valuable data regarding the distribution of scientific knowledge in social media platforms and to the general public. A social network may be used to increase the visibility of scientific articles apart from creating brands and markets.

Keywords

altmetric - blepharoplasty - correlation - Facebook - social media

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval was not required as this paper was web-based research.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Article published online:
02 February 2023

© 2023. Association of Plastic Surgeons of India. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Teven CM, Park JE, Song DH. Social media and consent: are patients adequately informed?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (05) 770e-771e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Vardanian AJ, Kusnezov N, Im DD, Lee JC, Jarrahy R. Social media use and impact on plastic surgery practice. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (05) 1184-1193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Economides JM, Fan KL, Pittman TA. An analysis of plastic surgeons' social media use and perceptions. Aesthet Surg J 2019; 39 (07) 794-802
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Agarwal A, Durairajanayagam D, Tatagari S. et al. Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics. Asian J Androl 2016; 18 (02) 296-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sener H, Polat OA. Altmetric analysis of the most-cited 100 articles on the retina published between 2010 and 2020. Retina 2022; 42 (02) 283-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Neylon C, Wu S. Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biol 2009; 7 (11) e1000242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Salinas CA, Kuruoglu D, Mayer HF, Huang TC, Sharaf B. Who is talking about #Facelift on Instagram?. Eur J Plast Surg 2022; 45 (03) 415-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Liu W, Shi K, Zhu X. et al. Adipose tissue-derived stem cells in plastic and reconstructive surgery: a bibliometric study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2021; 45 (02) 679-689
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Li Y, Wang X, Thomsen JB. et al. Research trends and performances of breast reconstruction: a bibliometric analysis. Ann Transl Med 2020; 8 (22) 1529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Zimmerman Z, Thomas JR. An accurate upper lid blepharoplasty: a key component of facial rejuvenation. Facial Plast Surg 2021; 37 (02) 194-197
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg 2018; 126 (05) 1763-1768
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bornmann L. Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. J Informetrics 2014; 8: 895-903
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Thelwall M, Haustein S, Larivière V, Sugimoto CR. Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS One 2013; 8 (05) e64841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Gould DJ, Grant Stevens W, Nazarian S. A primer on social media for plastic surgeons: what do I need to know about social media and how can it help my practice?. Aesthet Surg J 2017; 37 (05) 614-619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Paradis N, Knoll MA, Shah C. et al. Twitter: a platform for dissemination and discussion of scientific papers in radiation oncology. Am J Clin Oncol 2020; 43 (06) 442-445
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Vaona A, Banzi R, Kwag KH. et al. E-learning for health professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 1: CD011736
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med 2006; 81 (03) 207-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Cristel RT, Caughlin BP. Lower blepharoplasty three-dimensional volume assessment after fat pad transposition and concomitant fat grafting. Facial Plast Surg 2020; 36 (04) 478-483
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Heidekrueger PI, Juran S, Ehrl D, Aung T, Tanna N, Broer PN. Global aesthetic surgery statistics: a closer look. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2017; 51 (04) 270-274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cosmetic surgery national data bank statistics. Aesthet Surg J 2018; 38 (suppl_3): 1-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Malik M, Shamil E, D'Souza AR. Routine postoperative management of blepharoplasty: a review of current evidence-based practice. Facial Plast Surg 2021; 37 (03) 333-339
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Altin Ekin M, Karadeniz Ugurlu S. Prospective analysis of visual function changes in patients with dermatochalasis after upper eyelid blepharoplasty. Eur J Ophthalmol 2020; 30 (05) 978-984
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Shuai X, Pepe A, Bollen J. How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations. PLoS One 2012; 7 (11) e47523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Allen HG, Stanton TR, Di Pietro F, Moseley GL. Social media release increases dissemination of original articles in the clinical pain sciences. PLoS One 2013; 8 (07) e68914
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J 2008; 22 (02) 338-342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Yeung AWK. Comparison between Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed and publishers for mislabelled review papers. Curr Sci 2019; 116: 1909-1914
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar