{"title":"The 100 Most-Cited Publications in Lichen Planopilaris: A Bibliometric Analysis.","authors":"Tanya Boghosian, Narges Maskan Bermudez, Antonella Tosti","doi":"10.1159/000542898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Lichen planopilaris (LPP) is a rare scarring alopecia with poorly understood etiology, leading to challenges in both diagnosis and management. With an increasing number of studies focused on its clinical presentation, histopathology, and trichoscopic features, a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of high-impact LPP research is necessary to assess current trends and identify gaps in the literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The objective of this study was to analyze trends in LPP research using the top 100 most-cited articles from Web of Science.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average number of citations per article was 80.4 (range: 37-289), with publication dates ranging from 1990 to 2021. The most-cited article was Kossard's \"Progressive Frontal Scarring Alopecia in Postmenopausal Women\" with 289 citations. The USA (<i>n</i> = 47) had the most publications, followed by England (<i>n</i> = 18) and Spain (<i>n</i> = 14). Most articles were LOE 3 (<i>n</i> = 34) focusing on the \"clinical and histopathological presentation\" (<i>n</i> = 33). Key reported trichoscopic features included perifollicular erythema, perifollicular scaling, and loss of follicular ostia.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This bibliometric analysis highlights foundational LPP studies, emphasizing key trichoscopic features while revealing gaps in high-level evidence. It underscores the need for more rigorous research and expanded geographic diversity to enhance diagnostic markers, refine trichoscopic criteria, and improve therapeutic approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":21844,"journal":{"name":"Skin Appendage Disorders","volume":"11 3","pages":"245-254"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12136560/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Skin Appendage Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000542898","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Lichen planopilaris (LPP) is a rare scarring alopecia with poorly understood etiology, leading to challenges in both diagnosis and management. With an increasing number of studies focused on its clinical presentation, histopathology, and trichoscopic features, a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of high-impact LPP research is necessary to assess current trends and identify gaps in the literature.
Methods: The objective of this study was to analyze trends in LPP research using the top 100 most-cited articles from Web of Science.
Results: The average number of citations per article was 80.4 (range: 37-289), with publication dates ranging from 1990 to 2021. The most-cited article was Kossard's "Progressive Frontal Scarring Alopecia in Postmenopausal Women" with 289 citations. The USA (n = 47) had the most publications, followed by England (n = 18) and Spain (n = 14). Most articles were LOE 3 (n = 34) focusing on the "clinical and histopathological presentation" (n = 33). Key reported trichoscopic features included perifollicular erythema, perifollicular scaling, and loss of follicular ostia.
Conclusion: This bibliometric analysis highlights foundational LPP studies, emphasizing key trichoscopic features while revealing gaps in high-level evidence. It underscores the need for more rigorous research and expanded geographic diversity to enhance diagnostic markers, refine trichoscopic criteria, and improve therapeutic approaches.