LAUSR

Background As evidence-based medicine has taken hold across medical specialties, the level of evidence within the facial plastic surgery literature has risen, but remains weak in comparison. There has not yet been a systematic, critical appraisal of the relative strength of evidence among subsets of the practice of facial plastic surgery. Methods The current study is a systematic review, designed to evaluate the level of evidence observed in the facial plastic surgery literature. Five journals were queried using facial plastic surgery terms for four selected years over a 10-year period. Following screening, articles were assigned to a category regarding subject matter, assessed for the presence of various methodological traits, and evaluated for overall level of evidence. Comparisons were made in regard to level of evidence across the breadth of facial plastic surgery subject matter. Results A total of 826 articles were included for final review. Studies on operative facial rejuvenation and rhinoplasty had significantly fewer authors on average than studies on cancer reconstruction or craniofacial topics. Craniofacial studies demonstrated higher levels of evidence relative to all other categories, with the exception of facial paralysis and facial trauma studies, from which there was no significant difference. In general, reconstructive studies had significantly more authors and higher levels of evidence than did articles with an aesthetic focus. Conclusion Level of evidence in facial plastic surgery remains relatively weak overall. Reconstructive and particularly craniofacial studies demonstrate higher mean level of evidence, relative to other subsets of facial plastic surgery. Level of Evidence III 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