Subspecialization of the ophthalmic literature: a review of the publishing trends of the top general, clinical ophthalmic journals

Characteristics of retracted articles in ophthalmology

The retraction of publications is a crucial aspect of scientific integrity; it aims to correct the literature and alert scholars and the general public by identifying and labelling articles that contain erroneous data, unreliable findings, or flawed conclusions. Identifying and characterizing retracted articles within the scientific literature is thus very important. The aims of this article were to characterize retracted articles in the ophthalmological literature. One hundred and fifty-one retracted articles published between 1966 and 2023 were retrieved. The number of retracted articles showed an upward trend from 2020 onwards. Ocular oncology (n = 37, 24.5 %) was the most frequently represented subspeciality in the retracted articles, despite retina and uveitis being the most published. The most frequent reason for retraction was fake data (n = 62, 38 %). The labelling of retracted articles on some websites was unsatisfactory, especially on the free-access illegal platform Sci-Hub. On the other hand, platforms such as Dimensions, Scite and Retraction Watch exhibit promising accuracy. Improving the labelling of retractions is needed to reduce the citation of articles after they have been retracted. Solutions to reach this goal are discussed in this article.

Neuro-ophthalmology output in high-impact clinical ophthalmology and neurology journals

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the neuro-ophthalmology publishing trends of the top general clinical ophthalmology and neurology journals and to report (i) the proportion of articles that are neuro-ophthalmology focused and (ii) the correlation between annual proportion of neuro-ophthalmology-focused articles and annual proportion of neuro-ophthalmologist journal editors.

DESIGN

Retrospective database review.

MATERIALS

Articles in the top 5 general clinical ophthalmology and neurology journals.

METHODS

Publications from 2012 through 2021 were retrieved from Embase and classified as teaching or nonteaching articles based on journal indexing. Duplicate screening was conducted to further categorize articles as either focused or not focused on neuro-ophthalmology.

RESULTS

The titles, abstracts, and (or) full texts of 34,660 articles were reviewed. The total proportions of nonteaching articles and teaching articles focused on neuro-ophthalmology were 3.4% and 13.8%, respectively. Neuro-ophthalmology contributions to nonteaching and teaching publications were greater among the ophthalmology journals (4.0% and 15.2%) than among the neurology journals (2.6% and 13.3%). There were no clear trends in the annual proportion of neuro-ophthalmology-focused articles across the 10-year period. The annual proportion of neuro-ophthalmologist journal editors was positively correlated with annual neuro-ophthalmology output for teaching articles (Pearson's r = 0.541; p < 0.001) but not articles unrelated to teaching (Pearson's r = 0.067; p = 0.598).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that there was a lower prevalence of neuro-ophthalmology papers in high-impact-factor general clinical ophthalmology and neurology journals over the last 10 years. It is important to have good representation of neuro-ophthalmology studies in such journals to promote best neuro-ophthalmic practices among all clinicians.

Evaluation of Publications from the American Academy of Ophthalmology: A 5-Year Analysis of Ophthalmology Literature

Objective

To analyze recent publications in Ophthalmology, the journal of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

Design

Retrospective review of published articles.

Participants

No human participants were involved in the study.

Methods

Articles published in Ophthalmology from January 2018 to December 2022 were reviewed and analyzed.

Main Outcome Measures

Research and review articles were included and analyzed per the following: total number of published articles based on related subspecialty area, level of evidence using the modified Oxford level of evidence, number of citations, number of listed authors, gender of the corresponding author, country of affiliation of the corresponding and contributing author(s), and involvement of consortium(s), group(s), or committee(s).

Results

A total of 965 articles were included. The mean (standard deviation) number of authors per article was 8.6 (5.7) and the majority of corresponding authors were male (665, 70.7%). The greatest number of published articles were related to retina (296, 30.7%) followed by glaucoma (172, 17.8%). The greatest number of Preferred Practice Pattern guidelines were also related to retina (7/24, 29.1%), followed by cornea/dry eye syndrome/external disease (6/24, 25%). Retina (77) had the most level 1 evidence, glaucoma (30) for level 2 evidence, and retina for levels 3 (69) and 4 (65). There were 223 articles contributed by consortia/groups/committees, with most from retina (73, 32.7%) followed by glaucoma (40, 17.9%). The mean number of citations per subspecialty article was highest in retina (45.8/article), followed by uveitis (31.7/article). The United States had the greatest number of affiliated corresponding authors (544, 56.4%), followed by the United Kingdom (68, 7.0%). There were 357 (37.0%) articles with coauthors affiliated outside the corresponding author's country of affiliation, although with a downward trend over the most recent 5-year period. There has been an increasing trend in the number of authors and consortia/group/committee involvement in publications.

Conclusions

Although team science and collaborations have increased recently, ongoing efforts to diversify individuals, groups, and subspecialties may be needed.

Financial Disclosures

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

The 100 Most-Cited Articles on Optic Neuritis: Trends of Subtypes, Authorship, and Time

BACKGROUND

Optic neuritis (ON) is an optic nerve inflammation that may lead to different degrees of vision loss. In recent decades, ON research facilitated a better understanding of the disease and its subtypes. This bibliometric analysis aimed to detect the 100 most-cited medical articles related to ON in the last 50 years (1972-2021) and describe publication trends arising from the list.

METHODS

The Scopus database was used to locate and screen the 100 most influential ON papers based on the number of citations per article. Each entry was reviewed for the first author (name, gender, institution, and country), year of publication, journal, number of citations, ON subtype, and study design. The mean impact factor (IF) of each journal was calculated.

RESULTS

The median number of citations was 265 (range 182-2,396). Observational studies on neuromyelitis optica-associated ON were the most common (27%), and the most influential decade was 2002-2011 (54 papers). Seventy-nine percent of articles were published in neurology journals, and a positive correlation between the mean number of citations per article and the journal mean IF was observed ( r = 0.62, P < 0.001). Between 2009 and 2021, female authors led more ON studies (52%), and more publications originated outside the USA (68%), compared with previous years.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis summarizes the impact and shifting trends of ON research in the last decades.

Worldwide ophthalmological research production 2000-2020, with special focus on the Nordic contribution

PURPOSE

To explore the trends in worldwide ophthalmic research production over a 21-year period in relation to journals, contributing countries and dominating topics with special focus on the Nordic region.

METHODS

Articles published between 2000 and 2020 in 20 top-ranked ophthalmology journals were included. Number of articles and impact points were measured per country for each year. The most frequently occurring keywords were calculated worldwide and for the top five contributing countries and the Nordic countries. Trends were explored using linear regression.

RESULTS

The analysis included 65 220 articles. Linear regression showed an increase with 56 articles per year (β = 56.3, R²  = 0.72, p-value < 0.01). The United States published the most articles, comprising 35% of the worldwide total, followed by the United Kingdom (9%) and Japan (7%). Population-adjusted productivity revealed that Iceland was the most prolific country with 10 articles per million inhabitants/year. Singapore was second and Denmark third with corresponding numbers of nine and seven. Analysing regional trends, Asia had the largest increase in yearly number of articles (β = 29.1, R²  = 0.89, p-value < 0.01). The strongest positive trend was observed in China (β = 15.7, R²  = 0.94, p-value < 0.01). The Nordic countries contributed with 3.6% of worldwide ophthalmological papers. Among these, Denmark was the only country with a significant positive trend in impact points per million inhabitants per year (β = 0.6, R²  = 0.54, p-value < 0.01). The most frequently occurring eye disease within the whole time frame was myopia (5.8%) followed by macular degeneration (5.4%) and glaucoma (5.3%). Linear regression showed a significant increase in the proportion of articles about diabetic retinopathy (β = 0.2%, R²  = 0.88, p-value < 0.01) a significant decrease in the proportion in articles about cataract (β = -0.1%, R²  = 0.70, p-value < 0.01) and myopia (β = -0.1%, R²  = 0.67, p-value < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The worldwide ophthalmic research productivity has maintained a growing trend from 2000 to 2020. While North America and Europe are the major contributors, the scientific activity in Asia and especially China is growing impressively. With the current progress, Asia is forecast to outweigh Europe in 2025 and North America in 2033. Diabetic retinopathy was the most common eye disease in ophthalmologic papers in 2020, and also the topic with the strongest positive trend during 2000-2020.

Survey of Ophthalmology Training Experiences Among Young Ophthalmologists in the Asia-Pacific

PURPOSE

To describe ophthalmology training experiences across the Asia-Pacific (APAC).

DESIGN

Survey study.

METHODS

We utilized an anonymous online survey, which was previously validated and conducted in Europe, through Young Ophthalmologist leaders from the national member societies of the Asia-Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology (APAO) from September 2019 to July 2021. Responses were based on a 5-point Likert scale (where applicable) and data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Our main outcome measures were differences between regions, that is, Southeast Asia (SEA) and Western Pacific (WP); and seniority, that is, trainees/junior ophthalmologists and senior ophthalmologists.

RESULTS

We collated 130 responses representing 20 regions in the APAC region. The year of completion of ophthalmic training ranged from 1999 to 2024. The mean duration of training was 3.7±1.0 years. Most (98/130, 75%) indicated an interest for a common training standard across the APAC. Comparing SEA and WP trainees, both regions had similar working environments, but those in SEA reported significantly lower remuneration than their counterparts in WP ($600 vs $3000, P <0.05). WP trainees performed more phacoemulsification surgeries (76 WP vs 19 SEA), while SEA trainees conducted more manual small incision cataract surgeries (157 WP vs 1.5 SEA per duration of training). Senior ophthalmologists performed more cataract surgeries (210.9 senior ophthalmologists vs 40.1 junior ophthalmologists). Trainees had less confidence in medical competency areas such as interpreting an electroretinogram/visual evoked potential/electrooculogram (SEA=1.8, WP=2.1) and conducting an angiography (SEA=2.8, WP=3.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlighted heterogeneity among ophthalmology training experiences in the APAC region, with the majority indicating an interest in a common training standard.

Characteristics of the least-cited and most-cited articles in ophthalmology journals: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Limited research has examined differences between uncited papers and their most-cited counterparts. By comparing characteristics of each cohort, it is possible to better determine factors associated with increased citation count in the ophthalmology literature.

METHODS

We initially identified all research articles published in six popular general ophthalmology journals (Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, American Journal of Ophthalmology, British Journal of Ophthalmology, and Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology) between 2001 and 2011. Forty-nine articles were identified as having accrued zero citations as of March 2021 and were compared with an equivalent number of articles with the highest number of citations published in the same journals and time period. Significance (p < 0.05) for comparisons was determined using the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Compared to the least-cited articles, the most-cited articles were significantly more likely to be clinical, multi-institutional, and multi-national in scope, report a statistically significant result, have a conflict of interest, state a funding source, and have higher sample sizes. These publications had significantly more words in the abstract and manuscript and more references. Overall, the first authors of the most-cited articles were significantly more likely to be female and report greater prior research productivity, as assessed by the relative citation ratio (RCR).

CONCLUSION

Considering a small number of articles were uncited at least a decade after publication, it appears most research is useful for future investigations. However, there remain distinct differences between uncited articles and their most-cited equivalents in ophthalmology.

Publication trends in clinical ophthalmology journals in the last decade

PURPOSE

To examine the absolute number and the proportions of articles published in general high-ranked ophthalmology journals for each ophthalmic subspecialty during the last decade, and to examine the publishing trends over the study period.

METHODS

All original articles published between January 2010 and December 2019 in the selected general clinical ophthalmic journals were included in the study. All abstracts of original articles were reviewed and deemed to be related to 1 of the 11 ophthalmic subspecialties.

RESULTS

Six journals and 10,232 abstracts were reviewed. Articles focused on medical retina were the most common in the last decade (35.22%) while articles focused on strabismus were the least common (2.11%). The total number of articles published per year decreased during the last decade (p < 0.01). There was a significant reduction in the number of publications per year focused on anterior-chamber (p = 0.012), cataract and refractive-surgeries (p = 0.014), oculoplastic (p < 0.01), and strabismus (p = 0.011). In each year during the last decade, the highest proportion of publications was focused on medical retina while the lowest proportion of publications in most of the years was focused on strabismus. There was a significant decrease during the years in the proportion of articles focused on oculoplastic (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

During the last decade, there have been differences in the proportion of publications of different ophthalmology subspecialties in high impact factor journals. This probably derives from demographic changes and advances in diagnosis and treatment. The proportion of articles focused on medical retina was the highest during all years while the proportion of articles focused on strabismus was consistently the lowest.

Glaucoma Publication Trends in Leading General Ophthalmology Journals During the Past Quarter Century: Where Are the Clinical Trials?

PRCIS

During the past quarter century, the rate of glaucoma-related publication in general ophthalmology journals increased due to higher representation in "experimentally oriented" journals. The rate of glaucoma randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) articles decreased during the same time period.

PURPOSE

To evaluate trends in rate of glaucoma publications in leading general ophthalmology journals over the past quarter century.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Q1 ophthalmology journals Web sites were reviewed. Only journals not limited to certain subspecialty were considered "general" and included in the analysis. In addition we categorized journals orientation as either "clinical" or "experimental." The PubMed search engine was used to collect publications from the selected journals between January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2019. Publications captured by "glaucoma" or "ocular hypertension" filters were considered glaucoma related. The fraction of glaucoma articles out of total number of articles within each year for each journal was calculated. A linear mixed effects model was applied to detect trends in glaucoma publication rates during the study period.

RESULTS

Eight journals were included: 4 "clinically oriented" and 4 "experimentally oriented." The PubMed search yielded 72,750 publications, of which 9329 (12.8%) considered "glaucoma related." Percentage of glaucoma publications remained stable within "clinically oriented" journals, and significantly increased within "experimentally oriented" journals (annual change of 0.3%, P<0.001). The number of glaucoma-related RCTs decreased significantly in each (annual change of -0.21% and -0.13%, respectively, P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a significant rise in the rates of glaucoma publications in "experimentally oriented" journals, while their representation in "clinically oriented" journals remained stable over the past quarter century. This change might be due to the increasing efforts to develop more advanced methods for evaluation and treatment in glaucoma, although still unable to address clinical demands. The decrease in glaucoma-related RCT articles might indicate reduced funding for such research.

Evolution of Glaucoma Research: A Scientometric Review

Ophthalmic literature has been subjected to scientometrics in the past both for specific disease pathologies, such as, age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, and diabetic retinopathy, and specific journals to add insight to the evolving trends. This short scientometric review looks at the distribution pattern and subject domain knowledge of worldwide glaucoma research with data extracted from Web of Science (WoS, Clarivate Analytics) for the past 74 years.

How to cite this article: Ichhpujani P, Kalra G, Kaur R, et al. Evolution of Glaucoma Research: A Scientometric Review. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2020;14(3):98–105.

Speed of Online and Print Peer-Reviewed Ophthalmology Publications and Correlation to Journal Bibliometric Measures

Objective This study aimed to explore the relationship between publishing speeds and peer-reviewed journal bibliometric measures in ophthalmology.

Methods Journal Citation Reports and Scopus Database were accessed for identification of journal bibliometric measures in ophthalmology. Twelve randomly selected articles from 2018 for all identified journals were studied. All outcome measures were extracted from the full text of articles and correlated with journal bibliometric measures. Statistical analysis was performed on measured parameters in comparison to a previous study.

Main Outcomes and Measures Journal impact factor, Eigenfactor score, and CiteScore were correlated with time from submission or acceptance of manuscripts to online and print publication. The correlation between study design and publishing speeds was also assessed.

Results A total of 55 journals were included for a total of 657 articles. Online publications were significantly faster than print publications for almost every journal (p < 0.001). Laboratory experimental studies had significantly shorter times from submission to online publication (p = 0.002) and acceptance to online publication (p < 0.001) compared with observational and interventional studies. Journal impact factor was positively correlated to publishing speed from acceptance to online publication (p = 0.034). CiteScore was positively correlated to speed from submission to print publication (p = 0.04), acceptance to print publication (p = 0.013), and acceptance to online publication (p = 0.003). Eigenfactor score was not statistically significant when correlated with any outcome measures.

Conclusion Online publication has increased speed of dissemination of knowledge in the ophthalmology literature. Despite reporting higher numbers of submissions every year, ophthalmology journals with higher bibliometric measures of impact tend to publish peer-reviewed articles faster than journals with lower impact scores. Study design of an article may affect its speed to publication.

Frequency of Abstracts Presented at Eye and Vision Conferences Being Developed Into Full-Length Publications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Conference proceedings are platforms for early communication and dissemination of relevant and timely topics of interest. More than half of abstracts presented at biomedical conferences fail to be published in full, resulting in wasted time and resources.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review reports evaluating the proportion of abstracts presented at eye and vision conferences that are subsequently published in full and investigate factors associated with publication.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and reference lists of included reports were systematically searched from inception to January 11, 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Reports that examined the proportion of abstracts presented at eye and vision conferences and subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals 24 or more months later.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, abstracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the proportion of abstracts published in full and assess factors associated with subsequent full publication.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Proportion of abstracts presented at eye and vision conferences subsequently published in full.

RESULTS

There were 19 reports covering 12 261 abstracts presented at 11 unique eye and vision conferences. The overall risk of bias of the reports was low. The weighted proportion of abstracts published in full was 38.0% (95% CI, 31.7%-44.3%) and 54.9% (95% CI, 34.6%-73.7%) among reports restricted to abstracts describing randomized clinical trials. Nine reports (47.4%) investigated the proportion of abstracts subsequently published by ophthalmic subspecialties, ranging from 28.3% (oculoplastics: 95% CI, 17.2%-42.9%) to 42.7% (glaucoma: 95% CI, 34.7%-51.0%). Oral presentation (risk ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.20-1.76) and basic science (risk ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.47) were significantly associated with higher full publication; factors not significantly associated with full publication included positive results, randomized clinical trial vs other study design, multicenter study, and industry funding.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

More than 60% of abstracts presented at eye and vision conferences were not published in full within 2 years of conference presentation. Failure to disseminate research studies in peer-reviewed journals is not desired, especially when involving human participants.

Pediatric Publication Trends in Leading General Ophthalmology Journals for 20 Years

PURPOSE

To evaluate trends in the representation of pediatric-related articles in leading general ophthalmology journals for 20 years.

METHODS

A list of all relevant publications from five top-ranking general ophthalmology journals (Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology, British Journal of Ophthalmology, and Acta Ophthalmologica) between January 1997 and December 2016 was retrieved using the PubMed search engine. Articles captured by the age filter "child: birth-18 years" were considered pediatric. The annual pediatric publication rate was calculated as the fraction of pediatric articles out of the total number of articles within each year for every journal. A linear mixed effects model was applied to determine the trend in the pediatric publication rate during the study period.

RESULTS

A total of 37,181 publications were included in the analysis, of which 7,828 (21.1%) were classified as "pediatric." During the study period, there was a statistically significant decrease in pediatric publication rates, with an annual absolute decrease of 0.23% (P = .01), yielding relative reduction by approximately 18% over the past two decades.

CONCLUSIONS

Representation of pediatric articles progressively decreased in general ophthalmology journals. This trend has major implications regarding exposure of non-pediatric ophthalmologists to the new developments in pediatric management. In addition, this may imply a difficulty to publish pediatric-related articles in high-ranking general ophthalmology journals. [J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2020;57(2):78-84.].

Comparison of the h-indices of the editorial board members of seven ophthalmic subspecialty journals

PURPOSE

To investigate and compare the h-indices of the editorial board members of ophthalmic subspecialty journals.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive Cross Sectional Research.

METHODS

Bibliometric indices were calculated for the editorial board members of seven ophthalmic subspecialty journals. Correlations between the median h-indexes and journal impact factors (JIF), average citations per article and JIF, and publication count and JIF were analyzed.

RESULTS

The median h-indices of the board members of Retina, Journal of Glaucoma, Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Cornea, Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Journal of Neuroophthalmology and Journal of the American Academy of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (J AAPOS) were 34, 26, 23, 17, 15, 14 and 13, respectively. H-indices and publication count were correlated with JIF (P<0.05, for each).

CONCLUSION

The board members of Retina have the highest h-index and average citations per article, and J AAPOS have the least. These data provide useful benchmarks for comparison of the various subspecialty areas in ophthalmology.

Identification and description of controlled clinical trials published in Spanish Ophthalmology Journals

PURPOSE

Properly conducted controlled clinical trials (CCTs) provide the highest level of evidence for optimising decision-making in healthcare. Electronic search strategies do not exhaustively retrieve them, because of issues related to indexing, exclusion of journals in languages other than English, among others. A handsearch approach is therefore warranted. We aimed to identify all CCTs published in Ophthalmology journals in Spain, to describe their main features, and to submit them to the Cochrane Register of CCTs (CENTRAL).

METHODS

After identifying all Spanish Ophthalmology Journals, we conducted a systematic handsearch following Cochrane guidelines. When appropriate, results were compared against electronic searches. A descriptive analysis was completed, including risk of bias assessment.

RESULTS

We identified 18 eligible journals; 10 074 original articles, editorials, letters to the editor, abstracts and conference proceedings were assessed via handsearching for inclusion. Of these, 136 were subject to title and abstract screening, after which 102 were classified as CCTs. We identified three articles via electronic searches that had not been detected via handsearch, for a total of 105 CCTs. Among these, the most investigated pathologies were cataracts (32/105; 30.5%) and glaucoma (23/105 21.9%). Regarding risk of bias, 104/105 (99.0%) were deemed as "high risk of bias", mainly due to flaws in sequence generation and allocation concealment. 15/105 (14.3%) mentioned conflicts of interest, half of which had something to declare. No CCT reported adherence to CONSORT.

CONCLUSION

Spanish Ophthalmology journals publish a low number of CCTs, with limited methodological quality. Handsearching was more sensitive than the electronic searching. Abbreviations CCT: Controlled clinical trial.

Scientometric analysis and mapping of 20 years of glaucoma research

AIM

To provide a scientometric analysis in the field of glaucoma.

METHODS

A bibliometric method was used to obtain a view of the scientific production in field of glaucoma by data extracted from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) from 1993 to 2013. Specific parameters were retrieved from the ISI. Articles about glaucoma were analyzed regarding the topics' structure, history, and document relationships using HistCite software. Also, the trends in the most influential publications and authors were analyzed.

RESULTS

The number of articles was constantly increasing, and most highly cited articles addressed clinical and epidemiologic topics in this field. During the past three years, there has been a trend towards genomic research studies and also more molecular translational research.

CONCLUSION

This was the first scientometric report on glaucoma, analyzing the characteristics of papers and the trends in scientific production. A constant increase was observed in the number of papers, while the subject of papers had a shift in the past three years towards genomic research studies.

Trends and topics in eye disease research in PubMed from 2010 to 2014

Background: The purpose of this study is to provide a report on scientific production during the period 2010–2014 in order to identify the major topics as well as the predominant actors (journals, countries, continents) involved in the field of eye disease. Methods: A PubMed search was carried out to extract articles related to eye diseases during the period 2010–2014. Data were downloaded and processed through developed PHP scripts for further analysis. Results: A total of 62,123 articles were retrieved. A total of 3,368 different journals were found, and 19 journals were identified as “core journals” according to Braford’s law. English was by far the predominant language. A total of 853,182 MeSH terms were found, representing an average of 13.73 (SD = 4.98) MeSH terms per article. Among these 853,182 MeSH terms, 14,689 different MeSH terms were identified. Vision Disorders, Glaucoma, Diabetic Retinopathy, Macular Degeneration, and Cataract were the most frequent five MeSH terms related to eye diseases. The analysis of the total number of publications showed that Europe and Asia were the most productive continents, and the USA and China the most productive countries. Interestingly, using the mean Five-Year Impact Factor, the two most productive continents were North America and Oceania. After adjustment for population, the overall ranking positions changed in favor of smaller countries (i.e. Iceland, Switzerland, Denmark, and New Zealand), while after adjustment for Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the overall ranking positions changed in favor of some developing countries (Malawi, Guatemala, Singapore). Conclusions: Due to the large number of articles included and the numerous parameters analyzed, this study provides a wide view of scientific productivity related to eye diseases during the period 2010–2014 and allows us to better understand this field.

Trends in Pediatric Versus Adult Ophthalmology Publications Over 15 Years

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare trends in different categories of pediatric and adult ophthalmology publications.

METHODS

Publications in ophthalmology between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2012, were retrieved from PubMed. An age filter separated pediatric from adult articles.

RESULTS

There was a significant linear increase in the number of publications in both pediatric and adult publications. There was an increase over time in pediatric and adult clinical trials, letters to the editor, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews. There was a significant increase in adult randomized controlled trials only. No meaningful statistical analyses could be conducted for practice guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric and adult ophthalmology have demonstrated a significant increase in annual published articles. Practicing ophthalmologists have an increasing number of articles to read and might become more and more dependent on search engines and reviews to remain informed, emphasizing the need for official practice guidelines that are, unfortunately, seldom published.

Publication analysis of the contact lens field: what are the current topics of interest?

PURPOSE

To determine the main current research interests of scientists working in the contact lens field.

METHODS

All articles published in the 2011 issues of all journals included in the Journal Citation Reports subject category Ophthalmology were inspected to expose those papers related to the contact lens field. Information regarding source journal was obtained and authorship details were recorded to determine the top most prolific authors, institutions and countries. A comprehensive list of key words was compiled to generate a two-dimensional term map in which the frequency of occurrence of a particular term is defined by label size and the distance between two terms is an indication of the relatedness of these terms, based on their co-occurrences within groups of key words. Clusters of related terms were also identified.

RESULTS

Visual examination of all articles uncovered a total of 156 papers, published in 28 different journals. Contact Lens & Anterior Eye, Eye & Contact Lens and Optometry and Vision Science had 27 articles each. The most prolific authors and institutions revealed the predominance of countries with long research tradition in the contact lens field. Ten different word clusters or areas of interest were identified, including both traditional, yet unresolved issues (e.g., comfort or dry eye), and the latest research efforts (e.g., myopia control).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings, which revealed contact lenses to be a fertile area of research, may be of relevance to new researchers as well as to those interested in exploring the latest research trends in this scientific discipline.

Analysis of aggregate impact factor inflation in ophthalmology

PURPOSE

To analyze the aggregate impact factor (AIF) in ophthalmology, its inflation rate, and its relation to other subject fields.

METHODS

A retrospective, database review of all subject fields in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), Science edition. Citation data, AIF, number of journals and citations from the years 2003-2011 were analyzed. Data were retrieved from JCR. Future trends were calculated using a linear regression method.

RESULTS

The AIF varies considerably between subjects. It shows also an inflation rate, which varies annually. The AIF inflation rate in ophthalmology was not as high as the background AIF inflation rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The AIF inflation rate caused the AIF to increase annually. Not considering these variations in the AIF between years and between fields will make the AIF as a bibliometric tool inappropriate.