ReviewAesthetic plastic surgery2025
A Bibliometric Review of Software Tools in Plastic Surgery: How They Benefit Surgeons and Improve Practice from 2004 to 2024.
Review in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBibliometric analyses of software applications in plastic surgery are relatively limited. This study aims to address this gap by summarizing current research trends and providing insights that may guide future developments in this field.
methodsData were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. Visualized results, including publication characteristics, disciplines, journals, documents, countries/regions, institutions, authors, and research focuses, were analyzed and optimized using CiteSpace and the "Results Analysis" and "Citation Reports" functions in WoSCC.
resultsA total of 339 publications were identified through manual screening, indicating a general upward trend in annual publications and citations. Key research areas in this field include computer-aided design, modeling, virtual reality, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, social media software, telemedicine, and mobile health. However, challenges such as the high costs of advanced tools, the need for specialized training, and concerns regarding data security and patient privacy are significant barriers. Addressing these issues could be crucial for broader adoption. Despite these obstacles, the potential benefits offered by these technologies suggest their increasing relevance in plastic surgery.
conclusionPlastic surgery appears to be evolving toward a more standardized, digitalized, and intelligent future. Software has the potential to transform traditional workflows in both research and practice, contributing to improvements in efficiency and precision in the field. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
39779503What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.