Various comorbidities represent risk factors for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). The impact of smoking on COVID‐19 severity has been previously reported in several meta‐analyses limited by small sample sizes and poor methodology. We aimed to rigorously and definitively quantify the effects of smoking on COVID‐19 severity. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched between 1 December 2019 and 2 June 2020. Studies reporting smoking status of hospitalized patients with different severities of disease and/or at least one clinical endpoint of interest (disease progression, intensive care unit admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and mortality) were included. Data were pooled using a random‐effects model. This study was registered on PROSPERO: CRD42020180920. We analyzed 47 eligible studies reporting on 32 849 hospitalized COVID‐19 patients, with 8417 (25.6%) reporting a smoking history, comprising 1501 current smokers, 5676 former smokers, and 1240 unspecified smokers. Current smokers had an increased risk of severe COVID‐19 (risk ratios [RR]: 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14‐2.85; P = .012), and severe or critical COVID‐19 (RR: 1.98; CI: 1.16‐3.38; P = .012). Patients with a smoking history had a significantly increased risk of severe COVID‐19 (RR: 1.31; CI: 1.12‐1.54; P = .001), severe or critical COVID‐19 (RR: 1.35; CI: 1.19‐1.53; P < .0001), in‐hospital mortality (RR: 1.26; CI: 1.20‐1.32; P < .0001), disease progression (RR: 2.18; CI: 1.06‐4.49; P = .035), and need for mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.20; CI: 1.01‐1.42; P = .043). Patients with any smoking history are vulnerable to severe COVID‐19 and worse in‐hospital outcomes. In the absence of current targeted therapies, preventative, and supportive strategies to reduce morbidity and mortality in current and former smokers are crucial.

No abstract

Background: Abdominoplasty is one of the most common aesthetic procedures performed globally. Research in this field is evolving, with recent emphasis on evidence-based surgery optimizing informed consent. This bibliometric analysis aimed to characterize emerging research trends and to assess the methodological quality of the highest impact abdominoplasty research. Methods: The 100 most-cited articles in abdominoplasty were identified on Web of Science, across all available journals and years (1950–2019). Study details, including the citation count, main subject, and outcome measures, were extracted from each article by 2 independent reviewers. The level of evidence of each study was also assessed. Results: The 100 most-cited articles in abdominoplasty were cited by a total of 2545 articles. Citations per article ranged from 206 to 34 (mean 65). Overall, 50 articles were assessed to be level of evidence 3, which is representative of the large number of cohort studies (n = 59) on the list. Similar numbers achieved levels 2, 4, and 5 (n = 16, 20, and 14), though none reached level 1. The main subject was operative technique in 50 articles, followed by outcomes in 34 articles. Only 7 articles utilized objective cosmetic outcome measures. Patient-reported outcome measures were employed in 25 articles, though only 5 incorporated validated questionnaires. Conclusions: The most-cited research in abdominoplasty largely comprised low-to-moderate quality studies, with no article achieving the highest level of evidence. Contemporary high-quality evidence incorporating validated outcome measures is crucial to enhance shared decision-making, particularly in aesthetic procedures.

Background Liposuction is one of the most common cosmetic surgical procedures performed worldwide. Despite previous citation analyses in plastic surgery, the most-cited works in liposuction have not yet been qualitatively or quantitatively appraised. We hypothesized that use of validated outcome measures and levels of evidence would be low among these articles. Thus, we performed a bibliometric analysis aiming to comprehensively review the most-cited liposuction literature, evaluating characteristics and quality of the top 100 articles. Methods The 100 most-cited articles in liposuction were identified on Web of Science, across all available journals and years (1950–2020). Study details, including the citation count, main subject, and outcome measures, were extracted from each article by 2 independent reviewers. The level of evidence of each study was also assessed. Results The 100 most-cited articles in liposuction were cited by a total of 4809 articles. Citations per article ranged from 602 to 45 (mean, 92). Most articles were level of evidence 4 (n = 33) or 5 (n = 35), representative of the large number of case series, expert-opinion articles, and narrative reviews. Ten articles achieved level of evidence 3, 22 articles achieved level of evidence 2, and none reached level 1. The main subject was operative technique in 63 articles, followed by outcomes in 32 articles. Five articles assessed the metabolic effects of liposuction. Only 1 article used a validated objective cosmetic outcome measure, and none used validated patient-reported outcome measures. Conclusions This analysis provides an overview of the top cited liposuction literature. Overall, level of evidence was low, and no articles achieved the highest level of evidence. Improving the quality of literature requires prioritization of better-designed studies and incorporation of validated outcome measures, which will increase patient satisfaction and ensure provision of excellent, reproducible clinical care.