Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Top 50 most-cited articles on SMILE surgery between 2010 and 2022: a correlation comparison between conventional bibliometrics and current altmetrics of research impact

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To conduct a bibliometric and altmetric analysis of the top 50 most-cited articles on small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) surgery and assess its correlations with other metrics.

Methods

The terms “small incision lenticule extraction” or “SMILE” were searched in the title, abstract, and keywords using Web of Science database. The retrieved articles (n = 927, between 2010 and 2022) were analyzed in-depth using altmetric attention scores (AAS), and traditional metrics (citation numbers of articles, impact factor of journals, and other citation-based metrics). A correlation statistics was performed with metrics. The articles’ focus was examined quantitatively and the most prolific parameters were identified. Authorship network and country statistics also was examined.

Results

Citation numbers were between 491 and 45. AASs were between 26 and 0. The altmetric score correlated moderately with citation number (r = 0.44, P = 0.001) and annual mean citations (r = 0.49, P < 0.001), but correlated weakly with impact factor (r = 0.28, P = 0.045), and immediacy index (r = 0.32, P = 0.022). The most articles published from China and the most articles were published in 2014. Modern SMILE surgery was mostly compared to the older LASIK procedure. The highest authorship number of links belonged to Zhou XT.

Conclusion

The first bibliometric and altmetric analysis of SMILE research provides novel directions for future work by showing the current research trends, prolific parameters, and zones with potential for the public's attention, providing useful information about the dissemination of scientific knowledge on SMILE in social media and to the general public.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agarwal A, Durairajanayagam D, Tatagari S, Esteves SC, Harlev A, Henkel R et al (2016) Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics. Asian J Androl 18:296

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Godin B (2006) On the origins of bibliometrics. Scientometrics 68:109–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Neylon C, Wu S (2009) level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biol 7:e1000242

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Fenner M (2014) Altmetrics and other novel measures for scientific impact. Opening science. Springer, Cham, pp 179–189

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sener H, Polat OA (2022) Altmetric analysis of the most-cited 100 articles on the retina published between 2010 and 2020. Retina 42:283–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Gobbe M, Johnson N (2010) Accuracy and reproducibility of artemis central flap thickness and visual outcomes of LASIK with the Carl Zeiss Meditec VisuMax femtosecond laser and MEL 80 excimer laser platforms. J Refract Surg 26:107–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hjortdal JØ, Vestergaard AH, Ivarsen A, Ragunathan S, Asp S (2012) Predictors for the outcome of small-incision lenticule extraction for myopia. J Refract Surg 28:865–871

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Shah R, Shah S, Sengupta S (2011) Results of small incision lenticule extraction: all-in-one femtosecond laser refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:127–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sekundo W, Kunert KS, Blum M (2011) Small incision corneal refractive surgery using the small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) procedure for the correction of myopia and myopic astigmatism: results of a 6 month prospective study. Br J Ophthalmol 95:335–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Blum M, Täubig K, Gruhn C, Sekundo W, Kunert KS (2016) Five-year results of small incision lenticule extraction (ReLEx SMILE). Br J Ophthalmol 100:1192–1195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ang M, Tan D, Mehta JS (2012) Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) versus laser in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK): study protocol for a randomized, non-inferiority trial. Trials 13:1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. M S (2021) The Current State of SMILE vs. LASIK. https://www.reviewofophthalmology.com/article/the-current-state-of-smile-vs-lasik. Accessed 15 Nov 2022

  13. Asahi MG, Pakhchanian H, Doepker C, Raiker R, Gallemore RP (2021) A bibliometric analysis of the top 100 cited papers in retinal detachment. J Vitreoretin Dis 5:467–478

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Schargus M, Kromer R, Druchkiv V, Frings A (2018) The top 100 papers in dry eye–a bibliometric analysis. Ocul Surf 16:180–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bulut E, Celebi ARC, Dokur M, Dayi O (2021) Analysis of trending topics in glaucoma articles from an altmetric perspective. Int Ophthalmol 41:2125–2137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Flynn E, Pakhchanian H, Sohal P, Gupta R, Raiker R, Asahi MG et al (2022) Top 100 most cited papers in laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis surgery: a bibliometric analysis. Semin Ophthalmol 37:531–537

  17. Denoyer A, Landman E, Trinh L, Faure J-F, Auclin F, Baudouin C (2015) Dry eye disease after refractive surgery: comparative outcomes of small incision lenticule extraction versus LASIK. Ophthalmology 122:669–676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cartwright VA, McGhee CN (2005) Ophthalmology and vision science research: part 1: understanding and using journal impact factors and citation indices. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:1999–2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Garfield E (2006) The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA Ophthalmol 295:90–93

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Tomer C (1986) A statistical assessment of two measures of citation: the impact factor and the immediacy index. Inf Process Manag 22:251–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Villaseñor-Almaraz M, Islas-Serrano J, Murata C, Roldan-Valadez E (2019) Impact factor correlations with Scimago journal rank, source normalized impact per paper, Eigenfactor score, and the CiteScore in radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging journals. Radiol Med 124:495–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Djulbegovic M, Kalahasty K, Watane A, Jabori SK, Al-Khersan H, Sridhar J (2022) Correlation between altmetric attention scores and citations for articles published in high-impact factor ophthalmology journals from 2018 to 2019. JAMA Ophthalmol 140:623–627

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Chien JL, Sabharwal J, Namoglu EC, Ghassibi MP, Yuan M, Gandy C et al (2022) The 100 most mentioned glaucoma articles online with highest altmetric attention scores. J Glaucoma 31:8–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wiley ZC, Boyd CJ, Ananthasekar S, Bhat N, Bindiganavile SH, Lee AG (2021) Examining the relationship between Altmetric score and traditional bibliometrics in the ophthalmology literature for 2013 and 2016 cohorts. J Acad Ophthalmol 13:e89–e95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bornmann L (2014) Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. J Informet 8:895–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kuçuk B, Sirakaya E (2020) An analysis of YouTube videos as educational resources for patients about refractive surgery. Cornea 39:491–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhang Y, Shen Q, Jia Y, Zhou D, Zhou J (2016) Clinical outcomes of SMILE and FS-LASIK used to treat myopia: a meta-analysis. J Refract Surg 32:256–265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Gobbe M (2014) Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) history, fundamentals of a new refractive surgery technique and clinical outcomes. Eye Vis 1:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G (2008) Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J 22:338–342

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yeung AWK (2019) Comparison between Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed and publishers for mislabelled review papers. Curr Sci 116:1909–1914

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Division of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Erciyes University Medical Faculty, Kayseri, Turkey

    Cem Evereklioglu, Hidayet Sener & Fatih Horozoglu

  2. Mayaeye Hospital, Kayseri, Turkey

    Said Nafiz Mutlu

  3. Department of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics, Erciyes University Medical Faculty, Kayseri, Turkey

    Ayse Busra Gunay Sener

Authors
  1. Cem Evereklioglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hidayet Sener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Said Nafiz Mutlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ayse Busra Gunay Sener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fatih Horozoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Conceptualization was contributed by [CE]; methodology was contributed by [HŞ]; formal analysis and investigation were contributed by [SNM] and [ABGS]; writing—original draft preparation, was contributed by [CE, HŞ]; writing—review and editing, was contributed by [FH]. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cem Evereklioglu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interest to disclose. The authors declare no competing interests.

Consent to participate

No consent required.

Consent of publication

This submission has not been published anywhere previously and it is not simultaneously being considered for any other publication.

Ethics approval

No ethical approval was required because this is a Web of Science study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Evereklioglu, C., Sener, H., Mutlu, S.N. et al. Top 50 most-cited articles on SMILE surgery between 2010 and 2022: a correlation comparison between conventional bibliometrics and current altmetrics of research impact. Int Ophthalmol 43, 2521–2532 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-023-02652-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-023-02652-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation