The 50 Most Cited Papers in Craniofacial Anomalies and Craniofacial Surgery

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Background Citation analysis is a recognized scientometric method of classifying cited articles according to the frequency of which they have been referenced. The total number of citations an article receives is considered to reflect it's significance among it's peers.

Methods Until now, a bibliometric analysis has never been performed in the specialty of craniofacial anomalies and craniofacial surgery. This citation analysis generates an extensive list of the 50 most influential papers in this developing field. Journals specializing in craniofacial surgery, maxillofacial surgery, plastic surgery, neurosurgery, genetics and pediatrics were searched to demonstrate which articles have cultivated the specialty within the past 55 years.

Results The results show an intriguing compilation of papers which outline the fundamental knowledge of craniofacial anomalies and the developments of surgical techniques to manage these patients.

Conclusions This citation analysis provides a summation of the current most popular trends in craniofacial literature. These esteemed papers aid to direct our decision making today within this specialty.

Publication History

Received: 20 May 2015

Accepted: 07 July 2015

Article published online:
05 May 2022

© 2015. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

• References

• 1 Buchanan EP, Xue AS, Hollier Jr LH. Craniofacial syndromes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134: 128e-153e
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons [Internet]. London: Royal College of Surgeons of England; cited 2015 July 20 Available from: www.baoms.org.uk/craniofacialsurgery
• 3 Hylton JB, Leon-Salazar V, Anderson GC. et al. Multidisciplinary treatment approach in Treacher Collins syndrome. J Dent Child (Chic) 2012; 79: 15-21
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Garfield E. The impact factor and its rightful use. Anaesthesist 1998; 47: 439-440
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Garfield E. Journal impact factor: a brief review. CMAJ 1999; 161: 979-980
  Google Scholar
• 6 Saha S, Saint S, Christakis DA. Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality?. J Med Libr Assoc 2003; 91: 42-46
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Garfield E. 100 citation classics from the Journal of the American Medical Association. JAMA 1987; 257: 52-59
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997; 314: 498-502
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Hansson S. Impact factor as a misleading tool in evaluation of medical journals. Lancet 1995; 346: 906
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Baltussen A, Kindler CH. Citation classics in anesthetic journals. Anesth Analg 2004; 98: 443-451
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Paladugu R, Schein M, Gardezi S. et al. One hundred citation classics in general surgical journals. World J Surg 2002; 26: 1099-1105
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Fenton JE, Roy D, Hughes JP. et al. A century of citation classics in otolaryngology-head and neck Surgery journals. J Laryngol Otol 2002; 116: 494-498
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Loonen MP, Hage JJ, Kon M. Plastic Surgery Classics: characteristics of 50 top-cited articles in four Plastic Surgery Journals since 1946. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121: 320e-327e
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Yoon DY, Yun EJ, Ku YJ. et al. Citation classics in radiology journals: the 100 top-cited articles, 1945-2012. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201: 471-481
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Kelly JC, Glynn RW, O'Briain DE. et al. The 100 classic papers of orthopaedic surgery: a bibliometric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92: 1338-1343
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Institute for Scientific Information. Science citation index expanded 1946-2006 [Internet]. New York: Thomson Reuters; cited 2015 March/April Available from: http://www.isiwebofknowledge.com
  Google Scholar
• 17 Mahon NA, Joyce CW. A bibliometric analysis of the 50 most cited papers in cleft lip and palate. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2015; 49: 52-58
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Polley JW, Figueroa AA, Charbel FT. et al. Monobloc craniomaxillofacial distraction osteogenesis in a newborn with severe craniofacial synostosis: a preliminary report. J Craniofac Surg 1995; 6: 421-423
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Kane AA, Mitchell LE, Craven KP. et al. Observations on a recent increase in plagiocephaly without synostosis. Pediatrics 1996; 97: 877-885
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Campbell FM. National bias: a comparison of citation practices by health professionals. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1990; 78: 376-382
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Link AM. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 1998; 280: 246-247
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Callaham M, Wears RL, Weber E. Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. JAMA 2002; 287: 2847-2850
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Cole S. Citations and the evaluation of individual scientists. Trends Biochem Sci 1989; 14: 14
  Google Scholar
• 24 Bohannon RW, Roberts D. Core journals of rehabilitation: identification through index analysis. Int J Rehabil Res 1991; 14: 333-336
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Marx W, Schier H, Wanitschek M. Citation analysis using online databases: feasibilities and shortcomings. Scientometrics 2001; 52: 59-82
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar