ReviewCureus2025
Top 50 Highly Cited Publications in Cleft Lip: A 100-Year Bibliometric Analysis Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the most prevalent facial abnormalities in children is a cleft lip, affecting approximately one in 700 live births worldwide, which poses a serious problem for craniofacial surgeons. Over the past decades, cleft lip repair (cheiloplasty) has witnessed significant advances in surgical techniques, functional restoration, and aesthetic outcomes. This study conducted a bibliometric analysis of the 50 most cited articles in cleft lip surgery published over the previous 100 years, aiming to identify influential research, key trends, and leading contributors in the field. A structured search was carried out using the Web of Science database with specific keywords. Articles were selected based on citation count, excluding non-peer-reviewed or irrelevant publications. Extracted variables included annual citation frequency, study type, level of evidence, and use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Moreover, the analysis revealed that the majority of high-impact research was published during the 1990s and 2000s. Review articles and retrospective studies dominated the literature, while randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were relatively rare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.