Using the Disruptive Score to Identify Publications That Changed Plastic Surgery Practice.
Journal
Annals of plastic surgery
ISSN: 1536-3708
Titre abrégé: Ann Plast Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7805336
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 05 2022
01 05 2022
Historique:
medline:
25
9
2023
pubmed:
1
5
2022
entrez:
23
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The impact of academic publications is often characterized by the total number of future citations. However, this metric does not adequately characterize the true impact in terms of changing practices or paradigms. A new metric called the "disruption score" (DS) has been developed and validated in nonsurgical publications. This study aims to use the DS to identify the most disruptive publications in plastic surgery.The DS, a ratio of 2 numbers, varies between -1 and +1. Scores closer to -1 are developing papers that summarize the known literature while papers closer to +1 are disruptive-they result in a paradigm shift in the field of study. A search was performed for all articles from 1954 to 2014 in the following journals: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery; Aesthetic Surgery Journal; Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery; Annals of Plastic Surgery; Aesthetic Plastic Surgery; Clinics in Plastic Surgery; and Plastic Surgery. The disruptive score was calculated for each article.The top 100 papers ranked by DS were examined and any editorials/viewpoints, publications with less than 26 citations, or less than 3 references were excluded because of their subjective nature and smaller academic contribution. The remaining 64 publications were analyzed for topic, study type, and citation count. A total of 32,622 articles were found with a DS range from 0.385 to 0.923. The mean score of the top 64 articles was 0.539 with an average citation count of 195 and 9 references. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery had the most disruptive papers with 50. There were no randomized controlled trials with a majority of the studies being technical descriptions or case series. There are many ways to measure academic success, but there are fewer ways to measure the impact of academic contributions. The DS is a novel measurement that can demonstrate when an article results in a paradigm shift as opposed to just total citation count. When applied to the plastic surgery literature, the DS demonstrates that technical innovation and creativity are the most academically impactful. Future evaluations of academic success should include the DS to measure the quality of academic contributions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37740472
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003144
pii: 00000637-202205004-00015
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
S385-S390Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared.
Références
Ciaccio EJ, Bhagat G, Lebwohl B, et al. Comparison of several author indices for gauging academic productivity. Inform Med Unlocked. 2019;15:100166.
Zhang CT. The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS One. 2009;4:e5429.
Zhang CT. The h'-index, effectively improving the h-index based on the citation distribution. PLoS One. 2013;8:e59912.
Khusid JA, Gupta M, Sadiq AS, et al. Changing the status quo: the 100 most-disruptive papers in urology?Urology. 2021;153:56–68.
Sullivan GA, Skertich NJ, Gulack BC, et al. Shifting paradigms: the top 100 most disruptive papers in core pediatric surgery journals. J Pediatr Surg. 2021;56:1263–1274.
Becerra AZ, Aquina CT, Hayden DM, et al. The top 100 most disruptive publications in academic surgery journals: 1954–2014. Am J Surg. 2021;221:614–617.
Wu L, Wang D, Evans JA. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature. 2019;566:378–382.
Hansdorfer MA, Horen SR, Alba BE, et al. The 100 most-disruptive articles in plastic and reconstructive surgery and sub-specialties (1954–2014). Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021;9:e3446.
Lanz O. Over transplantatie. Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor Geneerskunde. 1907;43:1335.
Bruner JM. The zig-zag volar-digital incision for flexor-tendon surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1967;40:571–574.
Sheen JH. Spreader graft: a method of reconstructing the roof of the middle nasal vault following rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1984;73:230–239.
McKissock PK. Reduction mammaplasty with a vertical dermal flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1972;49:245–252.
Ribeiro L. A new technique for reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1975;55:330–334.
Snell JA, Dott WA. Internal fixation of certain fractures of the mandible by bone plating. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1969;43:281–286.
Guerrero-Santos J, Altamirano JT. The use of lingual flaps in repair of fistulas of the hard palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1966;38:123–128.
Harashina T. Analysis of 200 free flaps. Br J Plast Surg. 1988;41:33–36.
Kaufman T, Angel MF, Eichenlaub EH, et al. The salutary effects of the bed on the survival of experimental flaps. Ann Plast Surg. 1985;14:64–73.
Snyder CC, Levine GA, Swanson HM, et al. Mandibular lengthening by gradual distraction. Preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1973;51:506–508.
Radovan C. Breast reconstruction after mastectomy using the temporary expander. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1982;69:195–208.
Koshima I, Soeda S. Inferior epigastric artery skin flaps without rectus abdominis muscle. Br J Plast Surg. 1989;42:645–648.
Rosenberg JC. A study of Andrew Jackson's wounds and illnesses. Am J Surg. 1969;117:721–725.
Rohrich RJ. Minimally invasive, limited incision breast surgery: passing fad or emerging trend?Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;110:1315–1317.
Nelson JA, Dabic S, Mehrara BJ, et al. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma incidence: determining an accurate risk. Ann Surg. 2020;272:403–409.
Hartrampf CR, Scheflan M, Black PW. Breast reconstruction with a transverse abdominal island flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1982;69:216–225.
Tamai S. History of microsurgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(suppl 6):e282–e294.
Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ, et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:15–23.
Panchal H, Matros E. Current trends in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:7S–13S.