Do citation classics in rhinology reflect utility rather than quality?

Citation rates have been suggested to be more of an indicator of utility than quality. The aim of this study was to apply measures of utility and quality to articles identified as citation classics in rhinology/anterior skull base surgery. There were 14 articles analysed in the study. The assessment of quality was performed by combining factors from previous publications on quality assessment and the various elements were categorised into four groups; quality of written article and publication, quality of research, quality of evidence-based methodology and quality of outcome. This study revealed that citation classics in rhinology/anterior skull base surgery were well-written and satisfied peer review in reputable journals in the specialty. Quality is satisfied by clarity of exposition and patient numbers. The research was generally asking an important question and the methodology overall was adequate and appropriate for the type of study performed. A good quality of research and outcome was demonstrated with a definite historical importance, and reports that stimulated further research and enquiry. Quality is not satisfied by the lack of randomised controlled trials, appropriate statistical analysis or patient criteria. In conclusion citation rates when considered as an individual measure, reflect utility rather than quality.