ePoster listing and sessions

Topic: ESOPRS 2021 ePoster sessions
Time: Sep 17, 2021 16:00 Amsterdam, Berlin, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna, 15:00 London

 

 

(plain text version here)

Back to previous page


Evidence-Based Blepharoplasty: Analysis of the 100 Highest-Cited Research Papers

Author: Hong Kai Lim
ePoster Number: 243


Purpose

A bibliometric analysis was performed to appraise the methodological quality of the highest impact blepharoplasty research and to describe prevalent research themes.


Methods

The 100 highest-cited research papers relevant to blepharoplasty were obtained from Web of Science, with no date limitations applied. Data extraction included the study design, main research topic and specialty, outcome measures, and citation count. Each paper’s level of evidence was independently evaluated by 2 authors.


Results

Overall, the 100 highest-cited blepharoplasty research papers were cited by 4,194 papers. The mean number of citations for each paper was 73 (range: 42 – 239). Most of the papers presented level 4 (n=51) or level 5 (n=35) evidence, which is consistent with the predominance of case series (n=47) and expert opinions (n=18) amongst study designs. Although 6 papers presented level 2 evidence and 8 papers presented level 3, none achieved level 1 (highest). Significant research foci included innovative surgical techniques (n=65) and anatomical considerations (n=10), with reconstructive and cosmetic implications. Senior authors were mainly affiliated with plastic (n=53) or ophthalmic oculoplastic (n=34) centres. Of the 9 publications demonstrating multidisciplinary authorship, 6 had co-authors who were affiliated to ophthalmology. Only 3 papers utilised validated subjective or objective cosmetic outcome measures.


Conclusion

Despite a significant impact on current practice, the level of evidence of the highest-cited blepharoplasty research was predominantly low. Robust research methodology, through well designed studies and standardised outcome measures, is necessary to facilitate evidence synthesis and guide clinical practice.


Additional Authors

First nameLast nameBase Hospital / Institution
WaltonCharlesDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
RoselinCharlesDepartment of Ophthalmology, Torbay Hospital, Torquay, UK
MhafrinBastaJames Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK
AnkurKhajuriaKellogg College, Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Abstract ID: 21-138