No abstract

No abstract

Introduction:The COVID-19 pandemic posed unique challenges for breast reconstruction. Many professional organizations initially placed restrictions on breast reconstruction, leading surgeons to conceive innovative protocols for offering breast reconstruction. This study reviewed the current evidence on breast reconstruction during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide guidance for surgeons facing future crises. Methods: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for studies (1) describing implant and autologous breast reconstruction following mastectomy and (2) occurring during or pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Of the 1347 studies identified, 26 were included. Studies discussed type of reconstruction (18, 69%), complications (11, 42%), timing of reconstruction (10, 38%), protocols (10, 38%), COVID-19 screening (7, 27%), and length of hospital stay (7, 27%). The type of reconstruction varied depending on the stage of the pandemic: early on, autologous breast reconstruction was halted to preserve resources, but was later resumed. Within implant-based reconstruction, direct-toimplant was favored over serial tissue expansion. Several protocols were developed, with many emphasizing multidisciplinary collaborations for patient selection, use of specialized measures to reduce risk of COVID-19 transmission, and optimization of same-day discharge. Complication rates following breast reconstruction were similar to pre-pandemic rates. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the landscape of breast reconstruction by raising important questions about delivery of care, cost, and resource utilization. The findings of this review may inform surgeons as they plan for similar future crises or strive for improved patient care and efficacy even during nonpandemic times.

Background: Social media are transforming the dissemination of published research. This influence brought the advent of a new metric, altmetrics, which seeks to quantify the influence of research in real time based on an article’s attention online. This study aims to determine the correlation between altmetrics ratings for articles with traditional bibliometrics of impact factor and citation rate. Methods: The 10 most cited articles in the top 15 plastic surgery journals were determined for 2013 and 2016. The 2013 articles allow for a 5-year lag time, whereas 2016 data provide another timepoint for comparison. Altmetric scores and citation count were collected for each article. Impact factor and Twitter account age were determined for each journal. Statistical analysis was completed using descriptive statistics, and Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. Results: In both 2013 and 2016, there was a weak positive correlation between citations and Altmetric score (r = 0.2620, p = 0.0012; r = 0.3564, p < 0.0001, respectively) and between impact factor and the Altmetric score (r = 0.2419, p = 0.0040; r = 0.3887, p = < 0.0001, respectively). Twitter was the main contributor to the Altmetric score in both 2013 and 2016. Conclusions: Altmetric scores and traditional bibliometrics are not strongly correlated with one another in the plastic surgery literature at this point in time. Still, the short- and long-term impact of a publication might be determined through the combined analysis of citation count, impact factor, and Altmetric scores.

No abstract

Background The influence of research has long been studied using citations and impact factors (IFs). Electronic media is changing how people interact with the scientific literature. There are few investigations into these trends. Purpose To explore whether Altmetrics correlate with traditional bibliometrics in the Implantology literature. Materials and Methods Five Implantology journals with the highest IF and the 10 most highly‐cited articles within those journals from 2013 to 2016 were reviewed. Altmetric score, citation count, and media “mentions” were recorded. Comparisons were conducted between Altmetric score, citations, and IF by performing Pearson correlation coefficients and descriptive statistics. Twitter accounts were studied and compared to other metrics. Results Analysis revealed no correlation between citations and Altmetrics (r = .096,P = .506) or IF and Altmetrics (r = .111,P = .443) in 2013. Altmetrics were also not significantly correlated with citations (r = 0.148,P = .305) or IF (r = .145,P = .315) in 2016. Total Altmetric scores were nine times higher in 2016 compared to 2013, with news outlets and Twitter seeing large increases in mentions. Twitter was the top medium receiving mentions across the two cohorts. Conclusions Compared to other fields, Implantology articles received lower Altmetric scores, noting an area of improvement. Altmetrics at this time are insufficient to replace traditional bibliometrics, but may provide helpful real‐time information concerning article dissemination.

Objectives: To determine what factors of published urology research articles are associated with future citations.

No abstract