American Journal Of Ophthalmology Research Articles

Systematic bibliometric and visualized analysis of research hotspots and trends on the application of artificial intelligence in glaucoma from 2013 to 2022.

To conduct a bibliometric analysis of research on artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of glaucoma to gain a comprehensive understanding of the current state of research and identify potential new directions for future studies. Relevant articles on the application of AI in the field of glaucoma from the Web of Science Core Collection were retrieved, covering the period from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2022. In order to assess the contributions and co-occurrence relationships among different countries/regions, institutions, authors, and journals, CiteSpace and VOSviewer software were employed and the research hotspots and future trends within the field were identified. A total of 750 English articles published between 2013 and 2022 were collected, and the number of publications exhibited an overall increasing trend. The majority of the articles were from China, followed by the United States and India. National University of Singapore, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Sun Yat-sen University made significant contributions to the published works. Weinreb RN and Fu HZ ranked first among authors and cited authors. American Journal of Ophthalmology is the most impactful academic journal in the field of AI application in glaucoma. The disciplinary scope of this field includes ophthalmology, computer science, mathematics, molecular biology, genetics, and other related disciplines. The clustering and identification of keyword nodes in the co-occurrence network reveal the evolving landscape of AI application in the field of glaucoma. Initially, the hot topics in this field were primarily "segmentation", "classification" and "diagnosis". However, in recent years, the focus has shifted to "deep learning", "convolutional neural network" and "artificial intelligence". With the rapid development of AI technology, scholars have shown increasing interest in its application in the field of glaucoma. Moreover, the application of AI in assisting treatment and predicting prognosis in glaucoma may become a future research hotspot. However, the reliability and interpretability of AI data remain pressing issues that require resolution.

The multifaceted factors affecting the publication times of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus articles: what has changed in two decades

AbstractExpeditious publication is an important factor when considering publishing ophthalmic research. We investigated the factors associated with shorter publication times in pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus (POS). We analyzed 2487 POS articles from 8 ophthalmology journals publishing POS articles. Time from submission to acceptance, from acceptance to publication, and from submission to publication were calculated for each article. We compared trends over time of factors affecting the publication times from 2002 to 2007 and those from 2014 to 2018. Median peer review durations were 156 days from submission to acceptance; 79 days from acceptance to publication, and 244 days from submission to publication. The American Journal of Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and Strabismus had the shortest submission to publication time. Authors from Africa, East Europe, Central and South America received the fastest processing time in all time categories, although most authors were based in North America and UK. All-time intervals decreased annually, significantly more during the first decade. In the study's second period, more co-authors and affiliated departments correlated with shorter review times. Manuscripts in higher Impact Factor (IF) journals had faster publication times in the first decade. Female senior authors faced longer submission-to-acceptance times in the first decade. This gender gap disappeared in the second period. A general improvement occurred with most journals, specifically those journals with a higher number of co-authors and affiliated departments, indicating an efficient collaborative authorship. Low-income regions benefited from comparatively shorter time intervals. The gender gap in senior authorship diminished over time.

Geographical Trends in Global Ophthalmology Research from 2002-2022

PurposeCharacterize geographical trends in ophthalmology research between 2002-2022 and explore associations between study locations, designs, and funding sources DesignTrend study MethodsAnalysis of 4199 publications from American Journal of Ophthalmology, British Journal of Ophthalmology, Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, JAMA Ophthalmology, and Ophthalmology. All original full-length publications from 2002, 2012, and 2022 were included. Exclusion criteria were meta-analyses, literature reviews, and case reports. Main outcome measures were publication years, locations, study designs, and funding sources. ResultsPublications from North America (45.8%), Europe (30.7%), and Asia (28.9%) were the most common, whereas Africa (0.8%) and South America (1.4%) were least represented. North American research decreased by 10.6% (p < 0.001), whereas Asian research increased by 25.4% (p < 0.001). The USA contributed 42.3% of research but experienced a 11.3% decline from 2002-2022 (p < 0.001). USA publications received 5.8% more industry funding from 2002-2022 (p = 0.006). China's research grew by 17.0% and had the highest proportion of government (83.1%) or intramural (24.2%) funding (p < 0.001), with government-funded studies increasing by 46.7% (p < 0.001). Japan was less associated with all funding types (p ≤ 0.001). Singapore, Iceland, and Switzerland were top performers when adjusted for population size. ConclusionsWithin the examined journals, the USA remains the primary research contributor, with China witnessing rapid growth and Japan facing stagnation. Despite the USA's declining research proportion, North America and Europe continue to maintain a disproportionately high presence in prestigious academic journals. Publications from Africa and South America are limited.

Bibliometric analysis of publication trends on ocular hygiene and infections in the past two decades.

Ocular hygiene encompasses a spectrum of measures to initiate and maintain adequate ocular cleanliness to prevent eye infections and their further transmission. These infections affect all age groups and can lead to severe complications such as blindness. Nearly 1 billion cases could have been prevented out of over 2.2 billion people that are visually impaired worldwide. This bibliometric analysis focuses on the papers published on ocular hygiene and infections. We searched in the Scopus database from 2004 to 2024. After manual screening, a list of the 100 most-cited original articles was obtained, which was analysed for various factors, including temporal trends, subject areas, authorship patterns, country of origin, funding bodies, etc. There has been a gradual decline over the past two decades in the number of publications. The United States was affiliated with the highest number of publications (n=61), followed by The United Kingdom (n=12) and Gambia (n=8). Several authors had 4 or more publications, with the highest number of publications by Rouse, B. T. (n=14). The American Journal of Ophthalmology takes the lead with 15 publications, while the National Eye Institute (n=23) was the leading funding body. Examination of institutional contributions shows that The University of Tennessee, Knoxville and UT College of Veterinary Medicine stand out with twelve publications each. Nearly half the publications belong to the field of medicine. However, significant publications also come from the fields Neuroscience, Microbiology and Immunology, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, etc. These findings highlight that there is great potential to conduct research to propagate ocular hygiene to prevent adverse effects of infections.

A Bibliometric Analysis of the 100 Most Cited Articles in Cornea

Purpose: To identify the 100 most-cited articles in cornea to provide a bibliometric perspective of highly relevant works in recent years. Methods: The ISI Web of Knowledge database was selected as a bibliographic database to search for cornea-related articles published between 2013 and 2021. The search was performed in June 2022 and was conducted in all medical and scientific journals available on the database. The search was also refined to include articles in the “Ophthalmology” category. Results: Most articles were published in Ophthalmology (22%), followed by the American Journal of Ophthalmology (15%), Investigative Ophthalmology &amp; Visual Science (12%), and Cornea (8%). The corresponding authors were from 22 countries, predominantly from the United States (22%), China (14%), and Japan (11%). The most common study types include case series (31%), randomized clinical trials (15%), and cross-sectional studies (12%). The major topics of these articles included dry eye disease (19%), crosslinking (16%), keratoconus (12%), and keratoplasty (11%). There was a statistically significant correlation between the number of years since publication and the number of citations per year (Pearson's correlation coefficient = −0.80, P &lt; 0.001). COVID-related articles (5%) also demonstrated significantly higher numbers of citations per year compared to the rest of the articles (mean numbers of citations per year: 69.1 vs. 18.5, P = 0.003). There were 16 institutions that produced more than 1 article in the top 100 articles. Conclusions: This bibliometric study provided a unique perspective of the most relevant trends and themes of research in cornea in recent years.

Bibliometric analysis of the Vogt‒Koyanagi‒Harada disease literature

PurposeAs an autoimmune disease, Vogt‒Koyanagi‒Harada disease (VKHD) is a main type of uveitis in many countries and regions, significantly impacting patient vision. At present, information regarding VKHD is still limited, and further research is needed. We conducted a bibliometric analysis to characterize the overall status, current trends, and current focus of VKHD research.MethodLiterature published from 1975 to 2022 was obtained from the Web of Science core collection and analysed with the R-language packages Bibliometrix, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace software.ResultsA total of 1050 papers on VKHD were retrieved from 261 journals, and 16,084 references were obtained from the papers in the original search. The average annual number of published articles was approximately 21.9, and the number of publications rapidly increased after 2004. The journal Ocular Immunology and Inflammation published the most papers on VKHD, while the American Journal of Ophthalmology has the highest citation frequency. The leading countries were Japan, China (PRC), and the United States of America (USA). Yang PZ from Chongqing Medical University was the most prolific and cited author. The most frequently cited study discussed revision of VKHD diagnostic criteria. An analysis of the highest frequency keywords showed that most research focused on the treatment, diagnosis, and pathogenesis of VKHD and its relationship with other related diseases. At present, the most urgent research direction is in the relationship between COVID-19 or COVID-19 vaccines and VKHD and the corresponding mechanisms underlying it.ConclusionUtilizing dynamic and visualization tools, bibliometrics provides a clear depiction of the research history, development trends, and research hotspots in VKHD It serves as a valuable tool for identifying research gaps and areas that necessitate further exploration. Our study revealed potential directions for future VKHD research, including investigating specific molecular mechanisms underlying the disease, exploring the clinical utility of optical coherence tomography angiography and other diagnostic techniques, and conducting clinical research on novel therapeutic drugs.

Female Authorship and Ophthalmology Journal Editorial Board Membership Trends Over the Last Decade, 2012-2021

To study the relationship between female authorship and editorial board membership in 3 ophthalmology journals from 2012 to 2021. Cross-sectional and trend study. The prevalence of female first, senior authorship, and editorial board members were examined in Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and American Journal of Ophthalmology. Gender-API assigned gender to authors based on name and country. Editorial board (EB) information was manually extracted and grouped for comparison among leadership positions. Gender data collected on authorship and EB membership were compared. The proportion of women in EB positions was identified: editor-in-chief, mid-level editors, and consulting editors. Relationship between female authorship and editorial board membership was analyzed. Women published fewer articles as first (1547/4267) and senior (1165/4267) authors than did men. The proportion of women in senior authorship significantly increased from 2012 to 2021 (23.4% to 30.5%, P=.0046). Across EB, a significant increase in female members (13.9% to 34.6%, P=.0006) was observed. There was a significant correlation (P < .0001) between female EB members and female authors (r=0.74, 95% CI=0.51-0.87) for all journals. The odds of female first authorships were 1.89 (95% CI=1.65-2.17) times higher for articles with female senior authors than for male senior authors (P < .0001). Female senior authorship significantly increased over the last decade. Journals with a higher representation of female EB members also had a higher representation of female authorship. This study found a positive association between first and senior female authorship; however, the gender gap persists. Continued efforts to reach equity in publications and EB representation are necessary.

Characteristics of Design and Analysis of Ophthalmic Randomized Controlled Trials: A Review of Ophthalmic Papers 2020-2021.

To evaluate the recent practice of design and statistical analysis of ophthalmic randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Review of 96 ophthalmic RCTs. Two authors (R.D., G.S.Y.) reviewed primary result papers published from January 2020 through December 2021 in Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology, and British Journal of Ophthalmology. Data were extracted and analyzed for the characteristics of design (1-eye design, 2-eye design, paired-eye design, and subject design), sample size and power, and statistical analysis for intereye correlation adjustment, missing data, and correction for multiplicity. Characteristics of trial design and statistical analysis. Among 96 RCTs, 50 (52%) used 1-eye design, 21 (22%) 2-eye design, 10 (10%) paired-eye design, and 15 (16%) subject design. In 31 trials of 2-eye design or paired-eye design, 18 (58%) trials had suboptimal analysis of data from both eyes by analyzing data from 1 eye (n= 10), taking the average of 2 eyes (n= 2), analyzing 2 eyes separately (n= 1), ignoring intereye correlation (n= 3), or not specifying how 2-eye data were analyzed (n= 2), and 13 trials (42%) properly adjusted the intereye correlation by using the mixed-effects model (n= 6), paired t test (n= 5), generalized estimating equations (n= 1), or marginal Cox regression model (n= 1). Among 96 trials, 75 (78%) provided both sample size and statistical power estimation, and 16 (17%) trials described statistical test for sample size or power estimation. Missing data in primary outcome occurred in 86 (90%) trials with a median missing data rate of 8%, 32 (37%) trials applied statistical methods for missing data, including last value carried forward (n= 10), multiple imputation (n= 14), or other approaches (n= 8). Among 25 trials with > 2 arms, 16 (64%) corrected for multiplicity using the Bonferroni procedure (n= 8), Hochberg procedure (n= 2), Gatekeeping procedure (n= 2), or hierarchical procedure (n= 4). Among 16 trials with multiple primary outcomes, 4 (25%) corrected for multiplicity by the Bonferroni procedure. There are opportunities for improvement in the design and statistical analyses of ophthalmic trials, particularly in the aspects of adjustment for intereye correlation, missing data, and multiplicity. Continuing education in ophthalmology and vision research community may improve the quality of ophthalmic trials. Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Bibliometric Analysis of Ophthalmic Journals

The primary vehicle for reporting and testing advances in eye care is refereed ophthalmic journals, which can be characterized using targeted bibliometric analyses. To identify all ophthalmic journals and evaluate citation metrics relating to articles, journals, authors, institutions, and countries published therein. A bibliometric analysis was undertaken of all ophthalmic journals included in the Scopus database (Elsevier). The search was restricted to all article types published in ophthalmic journals in English from inception through November 18, 2022. After excluding general medical journals, journals published in a language other than English, and spurious titles unrelated to the ophthalmic field, the Scopus database was found to list 335 ophthalmic journal titles that have published 471 184 articles, constituting the data set for this analysis. The 20 most highly cited articles were identified. Rank-order lists by article count were assembled for journals, authors, institutions, and countries. An h-index for ophthalmic journal articles was derived from citations and article counts for each constituent of each category. The h-index for ophthalmic journal articles was determined to be 494. The journal with the highest h-index was Ophthalmology (h-index, 297). The journal with the greatest number of articles was American Journal of Ophthalmology (38 441 articles). The most highly cited article was by Quigley and Broman, 2006 (5147 citations), concerning the epidemiology of glaucoma. The author with the highest h-index for ophthalmic journal articles was Ronald Klein, MD (h-index, 126), and the most prolific was Carol L. Shields, MD (1400 articles). Johns Hopkins University (h-index, 215) was the institution with the highest h-index for ophthalmic journal articles, and Harvard University was the most prolific (10 071 articles). The United States was the nation with the highest h-index for ophthalmic journal articles (h-index, 444) and was the most prolific (180 017 articles). In this study, the most highly cited articles published in ophthalmic journals were revealed, as well as the leading journals, authors, institutions, and countries. While excluding ophthalmology articles in general medical journals, this investigation affords a means of identifying highly cited authors, institutions, and countries which individuals or institutions can use as a guide regarding contributions to the field.

Trends in research related to ophthalmic microperimetry from 1992 to 2022: A bibliometric analysis and knowledge graph study.

Microperimetry is a novel technology to assess macular function. The aim of the study was to explore the global research status and trends in microperimetry. Documents related to microperimetry in ophthalmology from 1992 to 2022 were extracted from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) database of the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC). Raw data were analyzed using the VOSviewer and CiteSpace software. Bibliometric parameters included annual publication quantity, countries, authors, journals, international cooperation, and keywords. A total of 1,217 peer-reviewed documents were retrieved. Annual research output has increased significantly since 2005, especially since 2013. Holz F, Rubin G, and Guymer R contributed most to the number of articles published about microperimetry. Rubin G, Fitzke F, and Holz F, respectively, received the most citations for their study. The countries publishing most were the USA, Italy, and the UK, while the USA, the UK, and Germany received the most citation frequency. Univ Bonn, UCL, and Moorfields Eye Hosp were the top three productive institutions for microperimetry research in the world. The top three journals that publish articles about microperimetry were Retina-The Journal of Retinal and Vitreous Diseases, Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, and the American Journal of Ophthalmology. The top 10 common keywords included microperimetry, optical coherence tomography, eye, retinal sensitivity, macular degeneration, fundus autofluorescence, scanning laser ophthalmoscope, visual acuity, sensitivity, and degeneration. Keywords "optical coherence tomography angiography," "retinitis pigmentosa," and "internal limiting membrane" burst in the last 3 years. The bibliometric and knowledge graph analysis of research status and trends in microperimetry provided global researchers with valuable information to propose future cooperation and track cutting-edge progress.

Self-reporting of Conflicts of Interest by Ophthalmology Researchers Compared with the Open Payments Database Industry Reports

To evaluate the completeness of conflict-of-interest self-reporting by ophthalmology researchers and to assess factors associated with self-reporting. Cross-sectional observational study. We evaluated articles published between January and June 2017 in Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, the American Journal of Ophthalmology, and Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. To assess more accurately the cases in which an author published multiple articles, we defined a unit of analysis, authorship, for which each author of each article is a unique data point. To enable comparison with the Open Payments Database (OPD), we only included United States physician authorships. For each authorship, we defined self-reported relationships as the companies listed in the article's conflict-of-interest disclosures. Based on journal policies, we defined OPD-reported relationships as the list of companies that reported payments to the author within 36 months before submission. For each authorship, we assessed the proportion of OPD-reported relationships that were self-reported. The primary measurement was the proportion of authorships reporting none of their OPD-reported relationships. Of the 660 total authorships (486 unique authors), 413 authorships (63%) reported none of their OPD-reported relationships, 112 (17%) reported some of them, 9 (1%) reported all of them, and 126 (19%) had 0 relationships. The proportion of authorships reporting none of their relationships did not differ significantly between journals that required reporting of all relationships compared with journals that required reporting only of relevant relationships (adjusted percentage, 61.4% vs. 64.3%; P= 0.46). Authorships with more dollars received during the reporting period showed higher rates of self-reporting (P < 0.001). Even among journals that required complete reporting, self-reporting was low compared with an industry-maintained database of financial relationships. Deficiencies in reporting may undermine confidence in self-reporting and may compromise the transparency that is needed to interpret research results fairly. Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Publication trends of research on conjunctival melanoma during 1997-2022: A 25-year bibliometric study.

BackgroundConjunctival melanoma (CM) is a life-threatening ocular tumor with a high rate of local recurrence and metastasis. Our objective is to analyze research trends in CM field and compare contributions from different countries, institutions and authors.MethodsWe extracted all CM-related publications published from 1997 to 2022 from the Web of Science database and applied Microsoft Excel and VOSviewer to review publication data, analyze publication trends, and visualize relevant data.ResultsA total of 708 publications were identified. The United States contributed the most publications (280) and citations (8,781 times) with the highest H-index value (47). The Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, British Journal of Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology and Cornea were the most productive journal concerning CM, and Shields CL, Shields JA, Jager MJ as well as Finger PT had published the most papers in the field. Keywords were classified into three clusters: clinical research, management-related research and genetic research. The keywords “primary acquired melanosis”, “metastasis” and “BRAF mutations” were most frequently emerged. According to the average appearing year (AAY), targeted therapy (AAY of 2019.0) and nivolumab (AAY of 2018.7) were identified as the main focuses of the field in the near future.ConclusionIn the past 25 years, the United States, Germany, England and the Netherlands held the leading position in the CM research. A group of scholars made important contributions to CM research and will continue to guide cutting-edge research. Treatments that have been shown to be effective for advanced cutaneous melanoma, such as targeted therapy and immunotherapy, are potential focuses for future CM research.

Authorship Trends of Women in Retina: A 25-Year Analysis

To examine the trends in first and last authorship of women within clinical retina research over the last 25 years. Cross-sectional study. First and last author names were retrieved from original articles published between January 1, 1995, and January 1, 2021, in the American Journal of Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology (Archives of Ophthalmology), Ophthalmology, and Retina. The medical subject heading major term "retina" was used in PubMed to filter publications specific to the field of retina. Publications by single authors and collaborative study groups and those classified as comments, letters, and editorials were excluded. First and last author names were obtained, and Gender API was used to assign sex. Names were crosschecked with the American Society of Retina Specialists (ASRS) directory for United States-based authors. The proportion of male and female first and last authors throughout the study period and the association between first and last authorship gender were assessed. A total of 4142 articles were included. The percentage of women in first and last authorship positions significantly increased from 23% to 37.7% and 14.2% to 24.6%, respectively, over 25 years (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). When the last authors were women, 32.5% of the first authors were women, and when the last authors were men, 27.1% of the first authors were women (P= 0.002). Based on the ASRS 2020 directory, 17% of practicing retina specialists in the United States were women in 2020. For publications in 2020, 28.2% of the first authors and 22.3% of the last authors of retina publications from the United States were women (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Although a disparity in authorship persists in the subspecialties of ophthalmology, this data suggest that retina is a field where the gap is improving. Mentorship by senior female authors is associated with a higher proportion of female first authors.

Ghost and Honorary Authorship in Ophthalmology: A Cross-Sectional Survey

To evaluate the rates of ghost and honorary authorship in ophthalmology and to determine risk factors associated with ghost and honorary authorship. Cross-sectional survey. Corresponding authors of articles published in Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and the American Journal of Ophthalmology from June 2019 to December 2020 were emailed an electronic survey. The rates of ghost and honorary authorship, demographic characteristics of the corresponding authors with and without ghost and honorary authorship, and risk factors for ghost and honorary authorship were evaluated. Corresponding authors (n=830) were emailed a survey and 278 total responses (34.1%) were received; 227 responses (27.9%) were complete and included for analysis. Most respondents (n=206, 90.7%) believed that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines for authorship adequately address criteria for authorship. Twenty-seven corresponding authors (11.9%) reported characteristics of their articles that indicated the presence of both ghost and honorary authorship (95% CI, 7.7%-16.1%). One hundred fifteen (50.7%) reported honorary authorship (44.2%-57.2%), and 37 (16.3%) indicated ghost authorship (11.5%-21.1%). Being a resident or fellow corresponding author increased the risk of honorary authorship (OR 11.75; 1.91-231.57; P=.03). There were no factors that predicted articles having ghost authors. While many authors believe the ICMJE guidelines for authorship comprehensively delineate fair authorship practices, listing authors on scientific publications honorarily and excluding authors who qualify for authorship are relatively common practices in ophthalmological research. Further investigation into the drivers of honorary and ghost authorship practices in ophthalmology, and the effectiveness of preventive measures are needed to ensure fair authorship attributions.

Impact of institutional affiliation bias on editorial publication decisions: A bibliometric analysis of three ophthalmology journals

Blinding is rarely performed for journal editors, who may be influenced by author institutional affiliations when deciding which manuscripts should be advanced for peer review. This study aims to evaluate the proportion of original investigations recently published in three high impact factor ophthalmology journals for which authors had matching institutional affiliations with the journals’ editor-in-chief or editorial board members. This bibliometric analysis included original investigations published in Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2016 and 2020. The primary outcome was the proportion of studies for which the institutional affiliations of authors matched those of the editor-in-chief or other editorial board members. Descriptive analysis was also performed to assess the central tendency of affiliation match data. The study included 1033 studies from Ophthalmology; 822 from JAMA Ophthalmology; and 1513 from American Journal of Ophthalmology. In total, 48.9% of all included publications had at least one author-editor affiliation match and originated from 66 unique institutions. Stratified by journal, 55.0% of studies originated from 23 institutions across 32 editors for Ophthalmology; 41.8% originated from 22 institutions across 27 editors for JAMA Ophthalmology; and 48.5% originated from 45 institutions across 69 editors for American Journal of Ophthalmology. Study limitations were due to limited publicly available data. We were unable to identify trends of institutional affiliations among rejected articles or identify acceptance trends in articles based on which editor they were assigned. Additionally, we would have liked to report on affiliation matches between authors and reviewers. The finding that nearly half of all publications originated from a small pool of editor-affiliated institutions highlights the potential for editorial affiliation bias to exacerbate broader inequalities in academia. Editors should be blinded to ensure objective manuscript review.

Ophthalmic trauma: the top 100 cited articles in Ophthalmology journals.

To analyze the top 100 cited papers on ophthalmic trauma. A literature search of Ophthalmology journals within the ISI Web of Science database for the most cited papers related to ophthalmic trauma. The most cited articles were published between 1943 and 2013, the greatest number being published in 2000. Ophthalmology (45), Archives of Ophthalmology (17), and the American Journal of Ophthalmology (15) published most of the articles. The institutions with the highest number of publications were Wilmer Eye Institute (10) and Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (7). Sixty-seven percent of the articles originated from the USA. The most common type of trauma studied was non-open-globe injuries and the most frequent topic studied were pathological conditions secondary to trauma (34), particularly endophthalmitis (8), and optic neuropathy (6). Articles presenting a standardized classification system for eye injury received the highest average of citations per publication. Types of research most frequently cited were observational clinical studies (62) and epidemiological studies (30); the least frequent were clinical trials (2). This bibliographic study provides a historical perspective of the literature and identifies trends within the most highly influential papers on ophthalmic trauma. Many of these articles emerged within the past three decades and came from Ophthalmology journals that remain high impact to this day. Clinical trials have been difficult to conduct and are lacking, reflecting a critical need in ophthalmic trauma research, as most of our understanding of ophthalmic trauma comes from observational and epidemiological studies.

Editorial introductions

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology was launched in 1990. It is one of a successful series of review journals whose unique format is designed to provide a systematic and critical assessment of the literature as presented in the many primary journals. The field of Ophthalmology is divided into nine sections that are reviewed once a year. Each section is assigned a Section Editor, a leading authority in the area, who identifies the most important topics at that time. Here we are pleased to introduce the Journal's Editor and Section Editor for this issue. EDITOR Allen C. HoAllen C. HoDr Allen C. Ho is an Attending Surgeon of the Retina Service and Director of Retina Research of Wills Eye Hospital, USA. He is Professor of Ophthalmology at Thomas Jefferson University School of Medicine, USA. Dr Ho is a founding member of Mid Atlantic Retina. He is author of multiple textbooks including Age Related Macular Degeneration Diagnosis and Treatment, The Wills Eye Hospital Color Atlas and Synopsis of Retinal Disease and is Editor-in-Chief of Current Opinion in Ophthalmology and Chief Medical Editor of Retina Today, a global publication that features new therapies for retinal disease. He is a member of the Scientific Editorial Boards of Retina Cases and Brief Reports, Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging, Retinal Physician, and Ocular Surgery News. Dr Ho has been an invited lecturer at numerous national and international ophthalmic meetings around the world. He is a recipient of multiple clinical research grants investigating new treatments for macular diseases sponsored by the National Eye Institute and received the American Academy of Ophthalmology's Achievement Award and Senior Achievement Award and the American Society of Retina Specialists Crystal Apple Award. Dr Ho is Principal Investigator at Wills Eye Institute of several collaborative clinical trials evaluating new treatments for age-related macular degeneration, surgical retina and diabetic retinopathy. He maintains special interests in macular diseases, diabetic retinopathy, surgical retinal diseases and clinical trials investigating new treatments for vitreoretinal diseases. SECTION EDITOR Natalie A. AfshariNatalie A. AfshariNatalie A. Afshari is Stuart I. Brown MD Chair in Ophthalmology in Memory of Donald P. Shiley, Chief of Cornea and Refractive Surgery, Vice Chair of Education, and Professor of Ophthalmology at the Shiley Eye Institute, University of California, San Diego. Prior to this, she was Professor of Ophthalmology and Director of Centers of Excellence at the Duke University Eye Center. She received her medical degree from Stanford University and her residency training at Harvard University, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary. She then completed a two-year fellowship in cornea and refractive surgery at Harvard University. Dr Afshari is the recipient of the Senior Achievement Award and the Secretariat Award by the American Academy of Ophthalmology and has been named a Gold Fellow of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology. She has received the inaugural Top Ten Women in Medicine award by Triangle News, Women Who Mean Business award by San Diego Business Journal, and the Teacher of the Year award at the Duke University Eye Center. She has also been recognized in the Best Doctors in America in each listing for the past decade, and was named in the U.S. News & World Report's Top Doctors List. Dr Afshari is the co-editor of a new two-volume cornea book called “Principles and Practice of Cornea”. She is also on the editorial boards of Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science and American Journal of Ophthalmology. She has previously served on the EyeNet editorial board, BCSC Cornea text book committee, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology council representing the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. She was co-chair of the cornea program committee for the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology and co-director of Cornea Subspecialty Day for the American Academy of Ophthalmology. She is currently the chair of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery FDA Committee. Her NIH research grant is on the study of Fuchs dystrophy, and she investigates the intricacies of endothelial keratoplasty and regeneration of cornea. When not researching or practicing, Dr Afshari donates her time and surgical expertise as an international volunteer. She has traveled to West Africa, Central America, and Mexico to help patients who might otherwise go untreated.

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

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. 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. 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). 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.

Female Editorial Authorship Trends in High-Impact Ophthalmology Journals

Individuals with perceived experience and expertise are invited by editorial boards to provide commentary through editorials. Female representation among editorialists is not yet defined. To determine female representation as editorial authors in 3 high-impact general ophthalmology journals. This cross-sectional study investigates the proportion of female authorship in editorials published between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 in 3 journals: Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and American Journal of Ophthalmology. Data were collected from April to June 2020. Proportions of female first and senior (last or solo) authors between 2005 to 2009 compared with 2015 to 2019. Secondary outcome measures include representation by sex across degree types and subspecialties. Comparisons were made for all editorialists and ophthalmologist editorialists. Of 814 editorial articles, there were 1179 (first and senior) authors identified. Women held 301 (25.5%) of these authorships, including 116 of 365 first authorships (32.9%) and 185 of 814 senior authorships (23.9%). Overall, female first and senior authorships grew by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019 (85 of 469 [18.1%] vs 216 of 710 [30.4%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 7.4-317.2; P < .001). Between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, first and senior authorships by women increased (first: 33 of 133 [24.8%] vs 83 of 232 [35.8%]; difference, 11.0%; 95% CI, 1.4-320.6; P = .03; senior: 52 of 336 [15.5%] vs 133 of 478 [27.8%]; difference, 12.3%; 95% CI, 6.8-317.9; P < .001). JAMA Ophthalmology most substantially contributed to the increase in female first and senior authorships (13.8% and 16%), although the test for homogeneity among the 3 journals was not significant. The proportion of female ophthalmologist first authors was greater than the proportion of American Board of Ophthalmology-certified female ophthalmologists (81 of 281 [28.9%] vs 123 of 672 [18.3%]; difference, 10.6%; 95% CI, 5.3-315.9; P < .001). The proportion of female senior authors increased by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, but female authors represented only 25.5% of editorialists. Compared with male ophthalmologists, female ophthalmologists were more commonly first than senior authors. Additionally, female authors were more likely to be nonophthalmologists or to hold nonmedical, non-PhD degrees. While the swelling rank of female editorialists has paralleled the rising proportion of female ophthalmologists over time, parity by sex has yet to be attained. Greater awareness of disparities and strategies to mitigate them may help equalize representation.

The American Glaucoma Society 100: Articles with Significant Impact on Clinical Glaucoma Care

To identify 100 articles with significant impact on the clinical care of patients with glaucoma. Cross-sectional study. A total of 108 members of the American Glaucoma Society (AGS) in the original survey and 63 in the follow-up survey. The 100 most frequently cited English-language original articles relevant to glaucoma were identified via a Scopus search. The American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Pattern Glaucoma Panel selected an additional 100 articles including newer and "classic" papers. An anonymous survey including the list of 200 articles was distributed to the AGS membership. Survey participants were asked to rate the impact of each article on the clinical care of glaucoma patients using a 4-point Likert scale. Survey respondents were able to provide "write-in" suggestions for the AGS 100. A subsequent anonymous follow-up survey was distributed asking participants to use the same Likert scale to rate 31 "write-in" articles suggested in the original survey. The AGS 100 was created by ranking the top 100 articles based on mean Likert scores from the original and follow-up surveys. Original English-language articles that have influenced the clinical care of patients with glaucoma. The mean ± standard deviation Likert score of articles included in the AGS 100 was 2.9 ± 0.3 (range, 2.47-3.69). The median citation number was 345 (range, 11-2426). Publication year ranged from 1965 to 2020. Articles were published in 14 journals, the most common of which were Ophthalmology (42%), American Journal of Ophthalmology (21%), and Archives of Ophthalmology (20%). Forty-eight articles were derived from randomized clinical trials. The AGS 100 is a collection of articles judged to have significant clinical impact on glaucoma care. The list will serve as an online educational resource for ophthalmologists in training and in practice.