Publication trends in clinical ophthalmology journals in the last decade

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.

[Potential pitfalls of anti-VEGF therapy of neovascular age-related macular degeneration]

When administering anti-VEGF therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), it is necessary to take into account the fact that treatment outcomes - in addition to factors associated with the disease itself - may be affected by progressive concomitant conditions (for example, macular atrophy) and possible adverse events (AEs). The latter can be divided into two large groups: non-inflammatory and inflammatory. Intraocular inflammation (IOI) is a rare but potentially dangerous AE of anti-VEGF therapy, which can include endophthalmitis, early sterile inflammation and retinal vasculitis. Raising awareness about inflammatory AEs is becoming even more important due to the sheer number of intravitreal injections performed, as well as the frequency of cases of IOI when using new anti-VEGF drugs. The new anti-VEGF drug Brolucizumab is associated with the development of retinal vasculitis, which is considered a type III and IV hypersensitivity reaction (involving cellular and humoral immune responses, respectively). The article presents an overview of publications on the mechanisms, clinical manifestations, differentiation, and methods of treatment of various types of IOI.