Evidence-Based Blepharoplasty: An Analysis of Highly Cited Research Papers

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to appraise the methodological quality of the highest impact blepharoplasty research and to describe prevalent research themes. Methods: The 100 most highly cited research papers relevant to blepharoplasty were obtained from Web of Science, with no journal or date limitations applied. Data extraction included the study design, main research topic and specialty, outcome measures, and citation count. Each paper’s level of evidence was independently evaluated by 2 authors according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine system. Results: Overall, the 100 most cited blepharoplasty research papers were cited by 4,194 papers. The mean number of citations for each paper was 73 (range: 42–239). Most of the papers presented level 4 (n = 51) or level 5 (n = 35) evidence, which is consistent with the predominance of case series (n = 47) and expert opinions (n = 18) amongst study designs. No papers achieved level 1 (highest) evidence. Six papers presented level 2 evidence and 8 papers presented level 3. Significant research foci included innovative surgical techniques (n = 65) and anatomical considerations (n = 10), with reconstructive and cosmetic implications. Senior authors were mainly affiliated with centers of plastic (n = 53) or ophthalmic/oculoplastic (n = 34) surgery. Only 3 papers used validated subjective or objective cosmetic outcome measures. Conclusions: Despite a significant impact on current practice, the level of evidence of the highly cited blepharoplasty research was predominantly low. Robust research methodology, through well-designed studies and standardized outcome measures, is necessary to facilitate evidence synthesis and guide clinical practice.