Ophthalmology Publications Research Articles

The involvement of clinicians in the most highly cited publications on artificial intelligence in ophthalmology indexed journals

PurposeSignificant advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to promising applications in ophthalmology. This study highlights the involvement of clinicians in the most cited ophthalmology publications on AI in ophthalmology journals indexed by Web of Science. MethodsArticles examining AI in ophthalmology journals were processed from Web of Science. After selecting relevant articles, we performed bibliometric analyses at the article and author levels as of March 2024. The primary outcome measure was the number of citations per article. Secondary outcomes included article measures (publication year, subspecialties, article type, databases, imaging) and author attributes (gender, academic metrics, location). ResultsThe top 100 publications were cited between 58 and 734 times, with a median of 91 citations. Publication reprint addresses were mainly based in America (44) and in Europe (22). Common subspecialties were retina (60), glaucoma (44) and cornea (18). Most imaging modalities were fundus photography (47), optical coherence tomography (47) and visual fields (19). 76 studies were aimed at the development and evaluation of a diagnostic technology. Some private databases (44 %) and public databases (40 %) were specified. Among the 399 men and 163 women authors, 297 were physicians (52.9 %). Women and men had significantly different h-indexes (women: 23 [interquartile range (IQR): 13–46] vs. men: 38.5 [17–65]; P = 0.02) and number of published documents (women: 104 [32–277] vs. men: 188.5 [63.5–394]; P = 0.03). ConclusionThe most influential articles in AI and ophthalmology by number of citations predominantly used AI for image recognition and improving diagnostic technology in retina followed by glaucoma. Physicians had a predominant role in these, highlighting the continued importance of clinician involvement in this research.

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.

Does Twitter improve the dissemination of ophthalmology scientific publications?

PurposeTo determine whether Twitter improves dissemination of ophthalmology scientific publicationsMethodsData were collected on articles published on PubMed between the years 2016 and 2021 (inclusive) and identified with the word “ophthalmology”. Twitter performance metrics, including the number of tweets, number of likes, and number of retweets were collected from Twitter using the publicly available scientific API. Machine learning and descriptive statistics were used to outline Twitter performance metrics.ResultsThe number of included articles was 433710. The percentage of articles that were in the top quartile for citation count, which had ≥1 tweet was 34.4% (number 437/1270). Conversely, the percentage of articles that were in the top quartile for citation count, which had 0 tweets was 27.8% (number 12023/43244). When machine learning was used to predict Twitter performance metrics an AUROC of 0.78 was returned. This was associated with an accuracy of 0.97ConclusionThis study has shown preliminary evidence to support that Twitter may improve the dissemination of scientific ophthalmology publications.

Impact of Gender and Underrepresented in Medicine Status on Research Productivity Among Ophthalmology Residency Applicants

Insufficient representation of women and underrepresented in medicine (URiM) students remains a problem among the ophthalmology workforce. In the residency selection process, research productivity is an important factor. We aimed to determine the average research output listed by applicants and assess for differences by gender and race. Retrospective cohort study. All San Francisco Match applications to the Wilmer Eye Institute for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 ophthalmology residency cycles were retrospectively reviewed. Each applicant's number of published research articles was recorded and subclassified into first-author publications in any field, publications in ophthalmology, and first-author publications in ophthalmology. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine factors associated with successful publication. A total of 1376 applications were reviewed. On average, women had a greater number of publications in ophthalmology (2.08 vs 1.73, P=.05) and presentations (4.52 vs 4.09, P=.01) compared with men. Self-identified URiMs were less likely to list publications in ophthalmology (odds ratio [OR] 0.650, P=.05) and first-author publications in ophthalmology (OR 0.570, P=.02) compared to non-URiMs. Our findings highlight disparities in research productivity by self-identified URiM status. On the other hand, women had similar if not higher research outputs than men. Greater research mentorship and opportunities to support URiM students may facilitate the recruitment of diverse trainees to ophthalmology programs.

Comprehensive bibliometric research in neuroscience: focusing on ophthalmology.

This study aimed to comprehensively summarize the knowledge structure and research hotspots of ophthalmology in the field of neuroscience through bibliometric and visual analysis. We searched the Web of Science Core Collection database for articles from 2002 to 2021 related to ophthalmology in the field of neuroscience. Using VOSviewer and CiteSpace, bibliometric analysis was conducted on the number of annual ophthalmology publications, authors, organizations, countries, journals, cited references, keywords, and burst keywords. A total of 9,179 articles were published from 34,073 authors, 4,987 organizations, and 87 countries. The cited references in these articles were published in 23,054 journals. Moreover, there were 30,864 keywords among the 9,179 articles. Notably, scholars have increasingly begun paying attention to ophthalmology in the field of neuroscience in the past 20 years. Claudio Babiloni published the most articles. The University of Washington had the greatest number of articles. The United States, Germany, and England led in the number of articles published. The Journal of Neuroscience was the most cited. The article with the highest outbreak intensity was an article published by Maurizio Corbetta in Nature Reviews Neuroscience in 2002 entitled "Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain." The most important keyword was the brain, and the top burst keyword was functional connectivity. This study visualized ophthalmology research in the field of neuroscience through bibliometric analysis and predicted potential research trends in future to help clinicians and basic researchers provide diversified perspectives and further carry out in-depth research on ophthalmology.

Bibliometric Analysis of Ophthalmology Publications from Arab Countries between 2012 and 2022.

The purpose of this study was to conduct a bibliometric analysis of articles published in Ophthalmology Journals from Arab countries from 2012 to 2022. This cross-sectional analysis of all original ophthalmology research and review articles published by authors with an affiliation with an institution from Arab countries and indexed in the ISI Web of Science between January 2012 and December 2022. For the years 2012-2022, 4292 articles published in Ophthalmology Journals by authors from Arab-based institutions were identified. A 2.11-fold progressive increase in the number of publications was observed over the last decade with a substantial increase in publication volume during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic. The countries with the highest number of publications were Egypt (38.51%), Saudi Arabia (35.56%), and the United Arab Emirates (7.88%). According to affiliation, authors from King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital (KKESH) (n = 644) published the highest number of ophthalmology articles, followed by King Saud University (n = 585) and Cairo University (n = 393). Over the last decade, the overall productivity of research in the field of ophthalmology has significantly increased. Majority of the articles in ophthalmology were published by authors from Egypt and Saudi Arabia with KKESH as the most productive institution among Arab nations.

Hotspots and trends in ophthalmology in recent 5 years: Bibliometric analysis in 2017-2021.

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate the hotspots and research trends of ophthalmology research.MethodOphthalmology research literature published between 2017 and 2021 was obtained in the Web of Science Core Collection database. The bibliometric analysis and network visualization were performed with the VOSviewer and CiteSpace. Publication-related information, including publication volume, citation counts, countries, journals, keywords, subject categories, and publication time, was analyzed.ResultsA total of 10,469 included ophthalmology publications had been cited a total of 7,995 times during the past 5 years. The top countries and journals for the number of publications were the United States and the Ophthalmology. The top 25 global high-impact documents had been identified using the citation ranking. Keyword co-occurrence analysis showed that the hotspots in ophthalmology research were epidemiological characteristics and treatment modalities of ocular diseases, artificial intelligence and fundus imaging technology, COVID-19-related telemedicine, and screening and prevention of ocular diseases. Keyword burst analysis revealed that “neural network,” “pharmacokinetics,” “geographic atrophy,” “implementation,” “variability,” “adverse events,” “automated detection,” and “retinal images” were the research trends of research in the field of ophthalmology through 2021. The analysis of the subject categories demonstrated the close cooperation relationships that existed between different subject categories, and collaborations with non-ophthalmology-related subject categories were increasing over time in the field of ophthalmology research.ConclusionsThe hotspots in ophthalmology research were epidemiology, prevention, screening, and treatment of ocular diseases, as well as artificial intelligence and fundus imaging technology and telemedicine. Research trends in ophthalmology research were artificial intelligence, drug development, and fundus diseases. Knowledge from non-ophthalmology fields is likely to be more involved in ophthalmology research.

Analysis of international publication trends in artificial intelligence in ophthalmology.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has entered the field of medicine, and ophthalmology is no exception. The objective of this study was to report on scientific production and publication trends, to identify journals, countries, international collaborations, and major MeSH terms involved in AI in ophthalmology research. Scientometric methods were used to evaluate global scientific production and development trends in AI in ophthalmology using PubMed and the Web of Science Core Collection. A total of 1356 articles were retrieved over the period 1966-2019. The yearly growth of AI in ophthalmology publications has been 18.89% over the last ten years, indicating that AI in ophthalmology is a very attractive topic in science. Analysis of the most productive journals showed that most were specialized in computer and medical systems. No journal was found to specialize in AI in ophthalmology. The USA, China, and the UK were the three most productive countries. The study of international collaboration showed that, besides the USA, researchers tended to collaborate with peers from neighboring countries. Among the twenty most frequent MeSH terms retrieved, there were only four related to clinical topics, revealing the retina and glaucoma as the most frequently encountered subjects of interest in AI in ophthalmology. Analysis of the top ten Journal Citation Reports categories of journals and MeSH terms for articles confirmed that AI in ophthalmology research is mainly focused on engineering and computing and is mainly technical research related to computer methods. This study provides a broad view of the current status and trends in AI in ophthalmology research and shows that AI in ophthalmology research is an attractive topic focusing on retinal diseases and glaucoma. This study may be useful for researchers in AI in ophthalmology such as clinicians, but also for scientists to better understand this research topic, know the main actors in this field (including journals and countries), and have a general overview of this research theme.

Analysis of retracted articles in the ophthalmic literature

To evaluate the frequency and reason for retraction of ophthalmology publications. Two independent reviewers retrieved data from PubMed and Medline using appropriate keywords. Statistical analysis was carried out using Mann-Whitney U test. A total of 83 articles were selected for the analysis between 1994 and 2019. Articles were retracted after a median of 1 year (IQR 4.0), and 55 (66.3%) articles were published in the year 2010 or after. Forty-eight (57.8%) articles were original articles. The most common subspecialties involved were basic science (51.8%), followed by vitreoretinal diseases (13.3%) and cornea and external diseases (7.1%). Fraudulent data were the cause of retraction in 22 (26.5%) articles, and 14 articles (16.87%) were retracted because of plagiarism. Thirteen articles (15.7%) were retracted due to errors in the data calculations, and ten (12.04%) were found to be duplicate submissions of previously published articles by the same author, while five articles (6.02%) had authorship disputes. Thirty-nine (46.9%) retracted articles were published in a journal with an impact factor greater than 2. The median number of citations received by the retracted articles was 2.0 (IQR 9.0). We conclude that the number of retractions in the ophthalmic literature have increased since 2010, though relatively limited information is available on the retracted articles. There is a need to strictly follow the current guidelines for providing the reasons for retraction and displaying retraction notices both in PubMed and on the journal websites.

Commentary: Publication trend of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 articles in the Indian Journal of Ophthalmology during COVID-19 pandemic.

Dear Editor, We read with great interest the article titled “Publication trend of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 articles in the Indian Journal of Ophthalmology during COVID-19 pandemic” by Gurnani and Kaur[1] In this article, the authors have retrospectively looked at the trend of COVID-19(coronavirus disease 2019)-related and non-COVID-19-related articles published in the Indian Journal of Ophthalmology during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The year 2020 brought with it a lot of hardships and adversities, in terms of almost collapsed patient care due to suspension of both outpatient and inpatient activities. But as someone rightly said that there is a good side to every evil thing, this pandemic also taught us some lessons and forced us to focus on some of the “hidden” good practices. The good side of the pandemic is evident from the adoption of changes in routine outpatient as well as inpatient care, in terms of the massive surge in the number of teleconsultations and webinars and an increase in the number of articles published as shown by the current study as well as various other published reports.[23] The article is nicely drafted and interpreted and pertains well to the current times. An important finding brought up by the article is the overall increase in the number of publications, in terms of quality as well as quantity, contributing to the improvement in the impact factor of the journal. Specifically, there was an increase in the number of “original research” articles published in the COVID-19 era. This is well evident because of the increased time available to the clinicians and surgeons during the lockdown period due to suspended clinical activities. Similar findings were also highlighted by Reitinger et al.,[3] who reported a 22.1% increase in ophthalmology publications from March to August 2020. Because the clinical activities are slowly getting increased, it will be nice to have a second such evaluation at the end of the year 2021 and to have a comparison of the trends in the years 2020 and 2021. Also, a comparison of trends in the year 2020 with the previous years will also be helpful. This will help further elaborate the preference patterns of clinicians between clinical and research work as the clinical activities resume. Clinicians must seek ways to maintain this upward trend of publication of original articles as the clinical activities resume.

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

Abstract 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.

Plagiarism in ophthalmology publications

Plagiarism in ophthalmology publications

Decadelong profile of women in ophthalmic publications.

In recent decades, there has been an increase in the number of women practicing medicine. We believe this shift may be reaching academic publications in ophthalmology and changing gender trends. To determine whether there has been an increase in women publishing academic articles and editorials in ophthalmology during the past decade. In this observational retrospective study, 3 ophthalmology journals were sampled from 2000 and 2010 for at least 100 articles per journal, per year, and all editorials published in both years. Data reviewed included the authors' gender, number of authors, number of references, subspecialty, and country of origin. Publication by women authors. The primary outcome measure was an increase in women publishing in ophthalmology. The hypothesis was formulated before data collection. Our analysis included 671 original articles (336 from 2000 and 335 from 2010) and 89 editorials. The percentage of original articles with a woman as first author increased from 23.2% in 2000 to 32.5% in 2010, a difference of 9.3% (95% CI, 23.3%-32.5%; P = .005). The percentage of original articles with a woman last author increased from 16.4% in 2000 to 24.2% in 2010, a difference of 7.8% (95% CI, 16.4%-24.2%; P = .01). The percentage of original articles with a woman first author increased in Asia from 1.2% in 2000 to 8.4% in 2010, a difference of 7.2% (95% CI, 1.2%-8.4%; P < .001). The percentage of articles with a woman last author increased in Europe from 2.2% in 2000 to 7.5% in 2010, a difference of 5.3% (95% CI, 2.2%-7.5%; P < .001) and in Asia from 0% in 2000 to 6.0% in 2010, a difference of 6.0% (95% CI, 0%-6%; P < .001). Editorials were written predominantly by men: 33 of 38 editorials (87%) in 2000 and 46 of 51 (90%) in 2010, a difference of 3% (95% CI, 87%-90%; P = .62), showing a trend toward decreased editorial authorship by women during the past decade. Our data suggest an increase in women publishing original investigations in ophthalmic literature, but no increase in editorial authorship.

E- Oftalmo.CBO: A Nova Revista Eletrônica da Oftalmologia Brasileira

The Brazilian Council of Ophthalmology (Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia–CBO), attentive to the concerns of ophthalmologists in the 21st century, has created a new scientific journal in electronic format, designated e-Oftalmo.cbo. This digital journal will use all media types (audio and video) and will serve as the newest mode of scientific information for Brazilian ophthalmologists. This digital scientific journal will be bilingual (published in English and Portuguese), bimensal, and targeted at ophthalmologists. It will publish literature reviews, updates, expert opinions, perspectives, debates, discussions, and summaries of the best recent publications in ophthalmology using all forms of digital media. The journal will allow for a faster and more direct access to scientific information in ophthalmology. It will also enable the online discussion of published studies and clinical cases. All these features can be accessed from a laptop or mobile phone. Simply login and you are done! Videos, audios, and written information on all topics of ophthalmology will be available at the tip of your finger. Therefore, I invite all Brazilian ophthalmologists and members of the Brazilian Council of Ophthalmology to actively participate in this journal, either as a reader or a scientific contributor. We are pleased to offer you this first edition, convinced that there is still a long way to go in improving communication through digital media. We are counting on you! Feel free to access the website and browse the new platform of scientific information in ophthalmology: e-Oftalmo.cbo. Kind regards, Prof. Dr. Carlos A. Moreira Jr

On the importance of multidrug-resistant strains of pathogenic microorganisms in ophthalmic practice

This is a review of epidemiological, microbiological and ophthalmological publications on the importance of multidrug-resistant bacterial strains in medical, particularly ophthalmological, care. Current state of pharmaceutical market and wide variety of generics confuses doctor's (including ophthalmologist's) sense of decision-making on the optimum antibiotic for the treatment of purulent inflammation. Indiscriminate use of antibiotics contributes to multiple drug resistance in bacteria. The world returns to the pre-antibiotic era, in which there was no treatment for severe infectious and inflammatory diseases. The most dangerous multiresistant strains known to medical science and their role in etiology of inflammatory eye diseases are listed in the article. Since neonatal conjunctivitis and postoperative endophthalmitis are the most common ocular inflammatory diseases caused by nosocomial multiresistant bacteria, their etiological classification is also described. Emergence of antibiotic resistance to most frequently used ophthalmic agents and prevention strategies are discussed.

JAMA Ophthalmology

The world of ophthalmology is fortunate to have had the scholarly leadershipofDanielAlbert,MD,MS, as oneof the longestserving editors of JAMAOphthalmology, formerly theArchives of Ophthalmology. It is an honor and a privilege for me to followDr Albert as the next (and ninth) editor of JAMAOphthalmology. Far beyond just a new editor in chief, this July 2013 issue begins the transition to a major redesign coordinated with JAMA and the 9 specialty journals, including JAMA Ophthalmology, that represent The JAMA Network. As a result of these changes, and the tightbondofThe JAMANetwork structurally and conceptually, the imprimatur of JAMA,with itshigh impact factor of 30andhopefully growing, and its ability to reachmillions of people in print, on theweb, or through digital media, provides an intangible benefit to JAMA Ophthalmology not available previously to it or other peerreviewed journals inophthalmology.Readers, authors, and reviewers can learnmore about the revolutionary changes in an editorial accompanying the July 1, 2013, issue of JAMA.1 JAMA Ophthalmology’s vision will continue to be, simply, to have the best peer-reviewed publications in ophthalmology. To do so, the journal must focus on getting some of the best people in ophthalmology to serve on the editorial board. The deputy editors, Roy Beck, MD, PhD, and Michael Kass, MD, and the associate editor, Frederick Ferris, MD, will lead an editorial board dedicated to keeping JAMA Ophthalmology the strongandessential journal that it hasbeen for more than 100 years. The ophthalmology community shouldexpect theeditorial board to reachout toauthorsofmajor clinical trials, basic discovery, early translation, comparative effectiveness, and dissemination of clinical research that arecritical toophthalmology research, education, clinical care, and public health. In this age of instantaneous communication, authors and readers should note that all major content is now posted online, ahead of print, saving months from time of acceptance to time of publication. Some additional upcoming changes to JAMAOphthalmologywill need some time to implement, but not toomuch time. Readers should expect new content starting in 2014. This contentwill bemeant to enhance the cuttingedge clinical research publications. Readers should anticipate expanded sections on viewpoints and perspectives that discuss howonemight consider applying new evidence from clinical trials intoeverydaypractice.An illustriousgroupofcontributingwriters fromtheophthalmicbranchesof theUSFood andDrugAdministration, theNational InstitutesofHealth, and theCochraneCollaborationwill provide commentariesof contemporary interest to the community-based and academicbasedclinicians. Popular sections, including continuingmedical education and clinical challenges, will continue to be available. It’s not just the content thatmay lookdifferent andunique inJAMAOphthalmologyover thenext fewyears;oneof thenext importantchallenges forpeer-reviewed journalswillbe therole of the web and digital media. The JAMA Network, including JAMA Ophthalmology, is ready to use the evolving power of these digital platforms and identify ways to apply it (for example, see theMay20,2013,Facebookpostingand linkedvideo onprimaryopen-angleglaucoma2), recognizing thatdailyhabits for obtaining medical knowledge involve more than reading the print edition of medical journals. In the end, the best peer-reviewed content and the finest digitalmedia areonlyof value if the coreprinciplesof the journal and its editorial board remaindedicated tomaintaining scientific integrity, concern for patient and human subject risks, andethical behavior thatdefine JAMAOphthalmology. Tohelp achieve this goal, the journal will maintain an advisory committee of leaders from around the world, independent of the editorial board, whose charge will be to ensure that the journal is true to its mission. On behalf of The JAMA Network, welcome to the beginningof thenextdecadeof JAMAOphthalmology.We invite our readers, reviewers,andauthorstocontactthejournalatanytime aswestrivetobethe indispensablesourceofophthalmicknowledge through authoritative peer review in the 21st century.

This issue of Acta, printed and electronic

This issue of Acta, printed and electronic

Choice of Analytic Approach for Eye-Specific Outcomes: One Eye or Two?

To investigate the use of analytic approaches for eye-specific outcomes in ophthalmology publications. A review of analytic approaches used in original research articles published in ophthalmology journals. All 161 research articles published in 5 ophthalmology journals in the first 2 months of 2008 were considered. Publications were categorized according to analytic approach: 1 eye selected, both eyes contribute, or per-individual outcome. Studies were considered suboptimal when criteria for eye selection were not provided or when measurements from both eyes were included without interocular correlation being considered. Visual impairment prevalence data were used to illustrate analytic approach choices. Measurements from both eyes were included in 38% of the 112 studies that used statistical inferential techniques. In 31 (74%), there was no mention of possible correlation. Only 7% used statistical methods appropriate for correlated outcomes. In 35 studies (31%), measurements from 1 eye were selected; 31% of these did not provide selection criteria. In 67%, only univariate tests were used. A review of 47 articles published in 2011 produced similar findings. Characteristics of studies were not found to differ according whether the studies were suboptimal. Using a test appropriate for correlated outcomes resulted in a P value 3.5 times that obtained ignoring the correlation. Between-eye correlation seems not to be assessed commonly in ophthalmology publications, although its knowledge aids the choice of analytic approach when eye-specific variables are of interest. Statistical methods appropriate for correlated ocular outcome data are not being applied widely.

This issue of Acta

This issue of Acta

Worldwide geographical distribution of ophthalmology publications

International peer-reviewed publications form the basis of evidence-based medicine and are one of the main indicators of ophthalmology research activity. This paper examines the origins of such articles in relation to geographical location, population demographics and economic research profiles. Publications from five ophthalmology journals over 5 years were analysed using the Medline/Pubmed search engine. Country of origin was ascertained based on the address of the corresponding author. Worldwide ophthalmology research output was analysed in relation to population demographics and research expenditure. In total, 7,754 articles from 67 countries from 2002 to 2006 were analysed. The overall number of articles published increased by over 29% during this period. The United States (US) produced the greatest number of articles. Singapore produced the most publications per 10(6) population. There was a relationship between gross domestic product (GDP) greater than $20,000 and population-adjusted output. The US followed by the United Kingdom and Japan were the greatest gross contributors. Population-adjusted figures revealed that Singapore, Iceland and Australia were the most prolific nations. There was a relationship between GDP and the top-ranked population-adjusted countries. The top 10 most productive population-adjusted countries spend relatively more on research and development than the top 10 gross contributors.