Ophthalmologic Literature Research Articles

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 Improving the labelling of retractions is needed to reduce the citation of articles after they have been retracted.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.

MRI Evaluation of Vasculopathy and Additional Intracranial Manifestations in Morning Glory Disc Anomaly

Morning glory disc anomaly (MGDA) is rare, but its fundoscopic findings are well documented in the ophthalmologic literature. It is sporadic, without sexual predisposition, and usually unilateral. Furthermore, it is associated with numerous central nervous system anomalies, including vasculopathy. This case series reports four pediatric patients over a 3-year period in whom ophthalmologic evaluation identified MGDA. Magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance angiography were subsequently performed to assess for associated intracranial vascular anomalies. This report is of significance because it demonstrates the spectrum of intracranial vasculopathy in this rare entity.

Transparency in Artificial Intelligence Reporting in Ophthalmology-A Scoping Review

This scoping review summarizes artificial intelligence (AI) reporting in ophthalmology literature in respect to model development and validation. We characterize the state of transparency in reporting of studies prospectively validating models for disease classification. Understanding what elements authors currently describe regarding their AI models may aid in the future standardization of reporting. This review highlights the need for transparency to facilitate the critical appraisal of models prior to clinical implementation, to minimize bias and inappropriate use. Transparent reporting can improve effective and equitable use in clinical settings. Eligible articles (as of January 2022) from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL were independently screened by 2 reviewers. All observational and clinical trial studies evaluating the performance of an AI model for disease classification of ophthalmic conditions were included. Studies were evaluated for reporting of parameters derived from reporting guidelines (CONSORT-AI, MI-CLAIM) and our previously published editorial on model cards. The reporting of these factors, which included basic model and dataset details (source, demographics), and prospective validation outcomes, were summarized. Thirty-seven prospective validation studies were included in the scoping review. Eleven additional associated training and/or retrospective validation studies were included if this information could not be determined from the primary articles. These 37 studies validated 27 unique AI models; multiple studies evaluated the same algorithms (EyeArt, IDx-DR, and Medios AI). Details of model development were variably reported; 18 of 27 models described training dataset annotation and 10 of 27 studies reported training data distribution. Demographic information of training data was rarely reported; 7 of the 27 unique models reported age and gender and only 2 reported race and/or ethnicity. At the level of prospective clinical validation, age and gender of populations was more consistently reported (29 and 28 of 37 studies, respectively), but only 9 studies reported race and/or ethnicity data. Scope of use was difficult to discern for the majority of models. Fifteen studies did not state or imply primary users. Our scoping review demonstrates variable reporting of information related to both model development and validation. The intention of our study was not to assess the quality of the factors we examined, but to characterize what information is, and is not, regularly reported. Our results suggest the need for greater transparency in the reporting of information necessary to determine the appropriateness and fairness of these tools prior to clinical use. Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

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

To analyze recent publications in Ophthalmology, the journal of the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Retrospective review of published articles. No human participants were involved in the study. Articles published in Ophthalmology from January 2018 to December 2022 were reviewed and analyzed. 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). 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. Although team science and collaborations have increased recently, ongoing efforts to diversify individuals, groups, and subspecialties may be needed. Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

DE02 Honing in on clinician needs: a grassroots development of an educational resource for dermatologists

Abstract Keeping up with the influx of scientific research papers can feel overwhelming, especially alongside busy clinical responsibilities. A PubMed search of the term ‘dermatology’ produced 29 565 results for 2021 alone, and, consequently, clinicians face spending hours a week scanning journals just to stay up to date. This is coupled with increasing clinical demand due to rising waiting lists and skin cancer pressures. Innovative solutions to the problem include regular newsletters, which have been proven to be an effective tool in medical education in other specialities (Kolli A, Nguyen A, Portney D et al. The Lens: can a weekly newsletter improve medical student knowledge of the ophthalmology literature? J Surg Educ 2021; 78:1905–14). To address this challenge in dermatology, we created a newsletter to make dermatology research more accessible. Two consultant dermatologists created a system whereby clinically relevant articles are chosen following a review of ∼30 journals. These are condensed into short clinical summaries, containing relevant findings, limitations and applicability, emulating a journal club style. This was initially distributed within our local hospital, but the team and readership have since expanded. From January 2022, in addition to the written newsletter, a freely available podcast for each newsletter was created giving an opportunity to learn on the move (e.g. while commuting). At 12 months, the newsletter has 206 subscribers, and the podcast has achieved 810 total plays (with download locations ranging from the USA to India). More recently, we have reached new audiences via Instagram, with 1700 views and 123 likes of the content thus far. A survey was distributed to current subscribers to determine the usefulness of the newsletter as an educational resource. Eighteen responses were received, and 100% agreed that they felt more informed on recent publications in dermatology from reading the newsletter (83% strongly agreed; 17% agreed). In addition to this, 100% felt that the articles chosen were relevant to their clinical practice (78% strongly agreed; 22% agreed). Feedback included comments such as ‘it is a great way to keep informed on recent publications that may be of interest’ and ‘super useful bite-sized information’. The General Medical Council guidance on Good Medical Practice requires doctors to ‘keep professional knowledge and skills up to date’. We feel the interest in our grassroots journal club publication and the survey results (with all our respondents feeling more informed on dermatological research, particularly with articles relevant to their clinical practice) highlight an unmet need for accessible educational resources to enable busy dermatologists to become aware rapidly and efficiently of the latest clinical developments.

Роль заболеваний глазной поверхности в патогенезе осложнений катарактальной хирургии

Purpose. To evaluate the possible role of the eye surface in the occurrence of residual ametropia and other complications after cataract surgery analyzing scientific ophthalmological data on this topic for the last five years. Material and methods. Analysis of domestic and foreign scientific ophthalmological literature over the past ten years. Results. There is a paradigm shift in the understanding of DES from a simple deficit of tear film to a chronic disease of the eye surface, followed by a complex of changes in all its structures. Conclusion. DES is an optical impairment and measurement of refractive parameters in patients with DES who will undergo cataract surgery is impossible. This leads to refractive errors in IOL power calculations and requires further keratorefractive operations to obtain high visual functions Key words: refractive errors, ametropia, ocular surface, dry eye syndrome

Effect of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic on Authorship Gender Disparities in the Ophthalmology Literature.

Background Studies in several fields of medicine have found that women published less during the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially due to an increase in domestic responsibilities. This study examines whether a similar pattern exists for female authorship in ophthalmology. Purpose To compare the proportions of female authorship published in high-impact ophthalmology journals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A cross-sectional study analyzing authorship gender of articles published during the COVID-19 pandemic (between July and September 2020) compared with matched articles published in the same journals before the COVID-19 pandemic (between July and September 2019). Gender of the first and last authors was analyzed using an online gender determination tool. Results A total of 577 articles and 1,113 authors were analyzed. There was no significant difference in the average number of publications by male and female authors before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a significant increase in the percentage of female first authorship from the prepandemic period (32%) to during the COVID-19 pandemic (40%; p = 0.01), but no significant increase in the last authorship ( p > 0.05). When analyzing only research articles, a similar increase in female first authorship was noted when comparing the publications before (31%) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (43%; p = 0.02). No significant differences were noted when analyzing the editorials ( p > 0.05). Conclusion While disparities continue to exist between male and female authorship, an increase in female first authorship was noted during the COVID-19 pandemic for overall articles as well as research articles. Precis During the COVID-19 pandemic, female authorship as first and last authors of peer-reviewed articles in high-impact ophthalmology journals was below 50%. However, while the overall rates of female authorship were unchanged, female first authorship significantly increased during the pandemic. These results differ from studies published in other medical fields that demonstrated a decrease in female authorship during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Association Between Twitter Mention and Open-Access Status on Article Citation Metrics in the Field of Ophthalmology.

It is possible that social media use can boost not just articles' social impact but the number of citations and academic influence as well. If a positive correlation between Twitter usage and citation metrics exists in the ophthalmology literature, it is important to broadcast this information to the ophthalmology community so they can use Twitter to increase academic engagement with their research. There has also been an increase in the number of articles available as open access. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the presence of an open-access citation advantage in the field of ophthalmology. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between Twitter mention and open access status on citation metrics in the ophthalmology literature. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study comparing article citation metrics to Twitter mentions and open access status. We gathered data on ophthalmology research articles from the six highest-ranked ophthalmology journals published as part of a January 2019 issue. Data were collected in April 2022, 38 months after online publication. Data on citations for each article was based on Google Scholar and Scopus websites. The Altmetric Bookmarklet extension was used to determine the amount of social engagement each article received. The open-access status of each article was based on the status listed in its corresponding journal. Two-tailed t-tests were used to compare social media engagement and open access status with the number of Google Scholar and Scopus citations. A total of 102 original research articles were analyzed. 89 (87.3%) articles received a Twitter mention. Articles tweeted at least once had a significantly higher Google Scholar score (27.2 +/- 4) compared to articles not tweeted (16.4 +/- 1.7; 1.7-fold increase, p<0.05). Likewise, the average Scopus score was significantly higher for tweeted articles (18.6 +/- 2.6) compared to articles not tweeted (11.8 +/- 1.6; 1.6-fold increase, p<0.05). Articles listed as open access had a significantly higher number of Twitter mentions (11.8 +/- 1.8) compared to articles that were not open access (5.6 +/- 0.7; 2.1-fold increase, p<0.05). Open-access articles also had higher citation scores compared to articles that are not open access, but this relationship was not statistically significant. This is the first study to evaluate the relationship between article Twitter mention and citation score in the field of ophthalmology. It demonstrates a significant positive correlation between the article Twitter mention and citation score and provides further evidence that social media engagement can be beneficial to the dissemination of academic information. Further studies on the relationship between social media engagement and article dissemination are warranted in the field of ophthalmology.

Assessing the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Ophthalmology Literature.

Assessing the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Ophthalmology Literature.

Factors Influencing Fellowship Training Among Ophthalmology Residents: A Pilot Study.

There has been an increase in ophthalmology fellowship training programs and applicants. The current ophthalmology literature lacks any recent study examining factors influencing residents' decisions to pursue subspecialty fellowship training. An anonymous, 16-item survey was distributed to residents from a convenience sample of ophthalmology residency programs by their program directors or administrators. A total of 72 residents and 9 interns from 9 distinct programs completed the survey. Eighty-two percent of respondents reported they have either applied or will apply for a fellowship position. Gender and race showed no significant association with fellowship application. Respondents perceived that obtaining a fellowship position would be easier (61%) than obtaining an ophthalmology residency. The desire for additional clinical and surgical training were the 2 primary factors for the pursuit of fellowship training. Half of those pursuing fellowship training (49%) indicated they still desired to practice comprehensive ophthalmology. None of the respondents indicated they wished to practice in a rural area. The data collected in this pilot study elicited factors and variable associations that provide a sound basis for informing revisions and improvements to the data collection tool for a follow-up prospective, longitudinal study involving all ACGME ophthalmology training programs. The results indicate some of the essential factors associated with the pursuit of fellowship training by the current generation of residents. The results also highlight potential trends related to residents' views of their training and desired practice patterns.

Implications of the presence of private equity in ophthalmology: an academic perspective.

Private equity acquisitions of ophthalmology private practices have been steadily increasing over the past decade with far-reaching implications. Ophthalmology departments at academic medical centers are not insulated from the impact of this trend. The limited data on this subject in the ophthalmology literature identify the growing number of practice acquisitions. However, the lack of transparency obfuscates a clear understanding of the effect on patients and practice patterns. Leaders at academic medical centers need to be aware of surrounding practice consolidation because of private equity as this could affect revenue streams and patient referral patterns, accelerating expansion. Trainees are entering an uncertain job marketplace that may create a compelling argument to practice in an academic medical center ophthalmology department.

The Extent of Gender Gap in Citations in Ophthalmology Literature.

PurposeTo investigate the severity and causes of gender imbalance in the counts of ophthalmology citations.MethodsThe PubMed database was searched to identify cited papers that were published in four journals (Prog Retin Eye Res, Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmol, and Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci) between August 2015 and July 2020, and those that referenced these cited papers by 2021 July (i.e., citing papers). The gender category of a given paper is defined by the gender of the first and last author (MM, FM, MF, and FF; M means male and F means female). A generalized additive model to predict the expected proportion was fitted. The difference between the observed proportion and expected proportion of citations of a paper’s gender category was the primary outcome.ResultsThe proportion of female-led (MF and FF) papers slightly increased from 27% in 2015 to 30% in 2020. MM, FM, MF, and FF papers were cited as −9.3, −1.5, 13.0, and 23.9% more than expected, respectively. MM papers cited 13.9% more male-led (MM and FM) papers than female-led papers, and FF papers cited 33.5% fewer male-led papers than female-led papers. The difference between the observed proportion and expected proportion of MM citing papers within male-led and female-led cited papers grew at a rate of 0.13 and 0.67% per year.ConclusionThe high frequency of citations of female-led papers might narrow the gender gap in the citation count within ophthalmology. These findings show that papers by female-led are less common, so the gender gap might still exist even with their high citation count.

Deepfakes in Ophthalmology: Applications and Realism of Synthetic Retinal Images from Generative Adversarial Networks.

PurposeGenerative adversarial networks (GANs) are deep learning (DL) models that can create and modify realistic-appearing synthetic images, or deepfakes, from real images. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the ability of experts to discern synthesized retinal fundus images from real fundus images and to review the current uses and limitations of GANs in ophthalmology.DesignDevelopment and expert evaluation of a GAN and an informal review of the literature.ParticipantsA total of 4282 image pairs of fundus images and retinal vessel maps acquired from a multicenter ROP screening program.MethodsPix2Pix HD, a high-resolution GAN, was first trained and validated on fundus and vessel map image pairs and subsequently used to generate 880 images from a held-out test set. Fifty synthetic images from this test set and 50 different real images were presented to 4 expert ROP ophthalmologists using a custom online system for evaluation of whether the images were real or synthetic. Literature was reviewed on PubMed and Google Scholars using combinations of the terms ophthalmology, GANs, generative adversarial networks, ophthalmology, images, deepfakes, and synthetic. Ancestor search was performed to broaden results.Main Outcome MeasuresExpert ability to discern real versus synthetic images was evaluated using percent accuracy. Statistical significance was evaluated using a Fisher exact test, with P values ≤ 0.05 thresholded for significance.ResultsThe expert majority correctly identified 59% of images as being real or synthetic (P = 0.1). Experts 1 to 4 correctly identified 54%, 58%, 49%, and 61% of images (P = 0.505, 0.158, 1.000, and 0.043, respectively). These results suggest that the majority of experts could not discern between real and synthetic images. Additionally, we identified 20 implementations of GANs in the ophthalmology literature, with applications in a variety of imaging modalities and ophthalmic diseases.ConclusionsGenerative adversarial networks can create synthetic fundus images that are indiscernible from real fundus images by expert ROP ophthalmologists. Synthetic images may improve dataset augmentation for DL, may be used in trainee education, and may have implications for patient privacy.

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.

The Lens: Can a Weekly Newsletter Improve Medical Student Knowledge of the Ophthalmology Literature?

Medical trainees often report barriers to their active engagement with academic medical literature. We assessed whether subscription to The Lens, a weekly newsletter summarizing recent ophthalmology literature, improved readers' knowledge of the literature. The implementation, uptake, and feasibility of The Lens are described. To assess newsletter efficacy, a 14 question multiple-choice quiz was designed with seven questions based on research articles featured in The Lens and seven based on articles published in high impact ophthalmology journals that were not featured in The Lens. The quiz was statistically validated in a sub-sample of non-subscribers to confirm similar difficulty between Lens and non-Lens quiz items. Among subscribers, within-participant scores on each subsection were compared using paired t-tests. Linear regression was used to determine if participation-adjusted subscription length was associated with quiz scores, after covariate adjustment. Medical student subscribers of The Lens. Over 12 months, The Lens attained 352 subscribers and summarized 410 research articles in 40 newsletters, at a monetary cost of <$5 per issue. The survey sample comprises 59 medical students who subscribed to The Lens. Subjectively, 83.1% of subscribers reported that The Lens helped them learn about the ophthalmology literature. Among non-subscribers, scores on the Lens and non-Lens quiz subsections were similar (median paired difference = 0%), indicating that subsections were similar in difficulty. Lens subscribers correctly answered 51.1% of Lens items, compared to 42.9% of non-Lens items (mean paired difference, 8.2%; p=0.022), indicating that readers retained information presented in The Lens. In an adjusted linear regression model, each additional participation-adjusted month of subscription to The Lens was associated with a 2.7% improvement in Lens item quiz score (p=0.022). Weekly newsletters can help trainees across medical specialties overcome barriers to engagement with the academic literature and improve their knowledge of recently published studies.

Результаты и возможные перспективы применения генетических технологий в офтальмологии. Часть 2.

Результаты и возможные перспективы применения генетических технологий в офтальмологии. Часть 2.

Public Interest in Cataract Surgery: Analysis and Implications of Google Trends Data from 14 European Countries

ABSTRACT Purpose Cataract surgery is the most common surgery performed in the European Union (EU) annually. Analysis of Google Trends (GT) data could give European eye care providers useful information regarding interest in cataract surgery and potential barriers making patients unwilling to undergo surgery. Methods Data were collected using GT for cataract surgery and the two most related queries, for each of 14 included countries from January 2004 to December 2018. Case volumes were extracted from the Eurostat report for the calendar years 2004–2018. Results The most related queries analysis demonstrated surgery outcomes, founding issues and understanding of the disease as potential factors for patients considering cataract surgery. Trend analysis showed that the total search volumes for “cataract surgery” gradually increased over the study period. Also, for “cataract”, “after cataract surgery”, “cataract surgery NHF” rising trends were revealed. Trends found for “cataract surgery price” and “cataract surgery complications” were inconclusive. Univariate linear regression analysis demonstrated statistically significant correlations between average annual search volumes of “cataract surgery” and the annual volume of cataract surgeries performed in included countries, according to Eurostat data (R2 = 0.889, p = <.001). In addition, univariate linear regression analyses revealed similar, statistically significant correlation for each the most related queries. Conclusion To the knowledge of the authors, this is the first and the only analysis of GT data in the ophthalmology literature to date. This study highlights this potentially powerful data set for European eye care providers.

Demographic correlations for 100 most-cited authors in ophthalmic research; a bibliometric study

Background: To analyze the academic characteristics, career trajectory, scholarly publications, and demographic background of the 100 most-cited authors in ophthalmic literature.&#x0D; Methods: In this observational cross-sectional study, a database containing every ophthalmology journal article from 1967 to 2018 was built using Scopus journal article information. The 100 authors with the most citations were identified, along with a control group of authors with at least five publications. Information about each author, such as gender, institution, and educational degrees were found from online web searches. Intra- and inter-group analyses were performed to identify correlations that may lead to having a high level of impact in ophthalmology literature.&#x0D; Results: Of the 100 most-cited ophthalmologists, 56 practice in the United States (US) and only 12 are female. In an odds ratio (OR) analysis, highly-cited researchers more often lived in the US (OR, 2.97; P &lt; 0.001), were male (OR, 2.4; P = 0.02), and graduated from an elite medical school (OR, 3.89; P = 0.02) and/or residency (OR, 3.67; P = 0.02), but were not from an undergraduate institution (P = 0.75). There was no difference in citation numbers between different ophthalmology subspecialties (P = 0.22) or advanced degrees (PhD, MPH in addition to MD). Women among the top-100-cited authors were more likely to author high impact journal articles (P &lt; 0.05).&#x0D; Conclusions: Among highly-cited ophthalmologists, practicing in the US and attending a top medical school or residency program may provide training for a successful research career in ophthalmology. Additionally, top female ophthalmologists participate in more influential research.

Результаты и возможные перспективы применения генетических технологий в офтальмологии. Часть 1.

Результаты и возможные перспективы применения генетических технологий в офтальмологии. Часть 1.

Examining the Relationship between Altmetric Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in the Ophthalmology Literature for 2013 and 2016 Cohorts.

Background In this study, we reviewed a select sample of ophthalmology literature to determine if there was a correlation between Altimetric and traditional citation-based and impact factor metrics. We hypothesized that Altmetric score would more closely correlate with impact factor and citations in 2016. Methods Journal Citation Reports for the year 2013 was used to find the 15 highest impact factor ophthalmology journals in 2013. Then Elsevier's Scopus was used to identify the 10 most cited articles from each journal for the years 2013 and 2016. Metrics for all identified articles were collected using the Altmetric Bookmarklet, and date of Twitter account creation was noted for journals with such an account. Altmetric scores, impact factor, and citation counts were tabulated for each article. Pearson's correlation coefficient ( r ) determined correlation of independent variables (number of citations or impact factor) with dependent variable (Altmetric score). For our Twitter analysis, account age was the independent variable and calculated correlation coefficients ( r ) were the dependent variable. Proportion of variance was determined with a coefficient of determination ( R 2 ). Results This study included 300 articles, evenly split between 2013 and 2016. Within the 2013 cohort, three journals had significant positive correlations between citation count and Altmetric score. For the 2016 cohort, both Altmetric score and citation count ( r = 0.583, p < 0.001) and Altmetric score and impact factor ( r = 0.183, p = 0.025) revealed significant positive correlations. In 2016, two journals were found to have significant correlations between Altmetric score and citation number. Neither year revealed a significant correlation between the age of a journal's Twitter profile and the relationship between Altmetric score and citation count. In each year, Twitter accounted for the highest number of mentions. Conclusion The findings suggest that correlation between Altmetric score and traditional quality metric scores may be increasing. Altmetric score was correlated with impact factor and number of citations in 2016 but not 2013. At this time, Altmetrics are best used as an adjunct that is complementary but not an alternative to traditional bibliometrics for assessing academic productivity and impact.