三种眼科学期刊引文分析

目的探讨中、美、英三国主办的三种眼科学期刊引文的引用规律及情报吸收能力。方法采用引文计量分析法统计American Journal of Ophthalmology（AJO）、British Journal of Ophthalmology（BJO）与中华眼科杂志（CJO）2005年刊载的论文所引用的参考文献,从引文数量、引文年代、普赖斯指数、自引率、高被引期刊等多方面进行比较分析。结果AJ0、BJO及CJO篇均引文数量分别为12．67、21．31及11．50,AJO、BJO及CJO的普赖斯指数分别为37．12％、33．47％及44．42％,自引率分别为13．39％、7．54％及9．89％,AJO、BJO及CJO分别引用了1140、1487及724种期刊,前13种期刊总被引频次占全部引文的58．82％、49．51％及46．39％。结论AJO、BJO及CJO各自具有不同的特点。BJO篇均引文数较高,涉猎文献范围广,自引率较低,引用文献半衰期较长;AJO引用期刊相对集中,自引率相对较高;CJO引用文献较新,普赖斯指数较高,自引率适中。     

Analysis of publication trends in two internationally renowned ophthalmology journals

International journals represent a forum for exchange of current information with contributions from all over the world. High standards are essential. In this report, we compared the publishing trends of two internationally renowned ophthalmology journals--the British Journal of Ophthalmology (BJO) and the American Journal of Ophthalmology (AJO).     

The 101 most frequently cited articles in ophthalmology journals from 1850 to 1949

We screened 32 ophthalmology journals that had published articles during the period from 1850 through 1949 to identify top-cited articles in the field of ophthalmology (hereafter referred to as citation classics) using the online database Science Citation Index Expanded (Thompson Reuters, Chicago, Illinois). The 101 most frequently cited articles were published in 16 journals. Archives of Ophthalmology had the most top-cited articles (n?=?31), followed by American Journal of Ophthalmology (n?=?24) and Albrecht von Graefe's Archiv für Ophthalmologie (n?=?9). These articles originated from 14 countries, with the United States publishing the majority (n?=?58). Most of the citation classics are clinical studies on topics such as rubella cataract, retinopathy of prematurity, keratoconjunctivitis sicca, sympathetic ophthalmia, and the first report of eponymous diseases (eg, Leber hereditary optic neuropathy, Duane retraction syndrome, and Stargardt disease). A considerable number of these articles were ignored initially and for several decades after publication, but, like the classic fairy tale Sleeping Beauty, they have been rediscovered. Our study provides a historical perspective on the classic papers in the literature that are still influential in ophthalmology.     

我国眼科学科技核心期刊2010-2014年主要学术指标对比研究

目的 探究我国眼科学科技核心期刊2010-2014年学术影响力的发展趋势。设计 回顾性资料分析。研究对象 我国眼科学科技核心期刊。方法 以2011-2015年中国科技引证报告（核心版）收录的眼科学科技核心期刊的主要学术指标为来源数据,比较我国眼科学科技核心期刊的总被引频次、影响因子、他引率、基金论文比和综合评价总分等指标。主要指标 期刊总被引频次、影响因子、他引率、基金论文比、综合评价总分。结果 2010-2014年,《中华眼科杂志》历年总被引频次均位居所有中国眼科学科技核心期刊首位,分别为2318、2584、2717、2616、2278;《国际眼科杂志》发文总量12 336篇位居第二位,近年来各项指标提升快;5年影响因子平均值位居前5位的分别是《中华眼科杂志》、《中华眼底病杂志》、《眼科新进展》、《中国斜视与小儿眼科杂志》、《眼科》,且其综合评价总分也相对较高,平均值分别为79.58、41.28、45.20、26.24、38.88。结论 我国眼科学科技核心期刊主要学术指标差异明显,但各自仍有上升空间。（眼科, 2016, 25： 413－417）     

2005年五种眼科期刊基金资助论文统计分析

目的研究我国5种中文眼科期刊基金资助论文情况,揭示目前眼科领域的基金资助论文特点及科研状况。方法选择2005年出版的中华眼科杂志、眼外伤职业眼病杂志、眼科研究、中国实用眼科杂志、中华眼底病杂志共5种国内公开发行的眼科期刊,采用引文计量分析方法对基金资助论文数量、基金资助论文率、基金资助论文的地区分布及研究方向、基金资助论文的作者合作度、基金资助论文获基金资助项目数量及其在栏目中的分布等进行分析探讨。结果2005年5种眼科期刊所载基金资助论文率为12．72％（222／1745）,其中国家级为4．70％,省部级为4．81％,其他基金为3．21％。基金资助论文作者合作度最高为5．21,基金资助论文产出量以广东省最高,占31．98％（71／222）。各期刊基金资助论文均以获单项基金资助为主,为149项（67．12％）。基金资助论文研究主要集中于视网膜（51／222,22．97％）、角膜（38／222,17．12％）及晶状体领域（25／222,11．26％）。结论5种眼科期刊发表基金资助论文数量、级别均较往年有所提高,但与其他专业领域相比还有一定差距,尚待提高。     

Sample size in studies on diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology: a literature survey

AIM: To assess the sample sizes used in studies on diagnostic accuracy in ophthalmology. Design and sources: A survey literature published in 2005. METHODS: The frequency of reporting calculations of sample sizes and the samples' sizes were extracted from the published literature. A manual search of five leading clinical journals in ophthalmology with the highest impact (Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology and British Journal of Ophthalmology) was conducted by two independent investigators. RESULTS: A total of 1698 articles were identified, of which 40 studies were on diagnostic accuracy. One study reported that sample size was calculated before initiating the study. Another study reported consideration of sample size without calculation. The mean (SD) sample size of all diagnostic studies was 172.6 (218.9). The median prevalence of the target condition was 50.5%. CONCLUSION: Only a few studies consider sample size in their methods. Inadequate sample sizes in diagnostic accuracy studies may result in misleading estimates of test accuracy. An improvement over the current standards on the design and reporting of diagnostic studies is warranted.     

中外眼科学术期刊中视力的检测和统计方法比较

目的 比较《中华眼科杂志》（简称C刊）和〈美国眼科杂志〉（简称A刊）上发表的临床科研论文中采用的视力检测方法和统计方法的区别.方法 收集2003-2005年C刊和A刊所有涉及视力的临床科研论文全文.记录每篇论文是否说明视力表类型、视力记录法、是否将小数或分数记录法转换为对数记录法、视力的描述性统计、推断性统计方法、是否使用图表描述视力、是否使用表格列出所有患者的视力等方面资料.计算两种期刊中各自采用的各种方法的比例,并进行比较.结果 C刊3年共刊出论著400篇,有132篇（33.0%）涉及视力;A刊共刊出论著616篇,有358篇（58.1%）涉及视力.C刊和A刊各有77.3%和50.8%的论文没有说明使用的视力表类型.C刊中91.7%的论文采用小数记录法,其中2.6%转换为对数记录法,另外有3.8%的论文直接采用对数记录法：而A刊中74.9%的论文采用分数记录法,其中29.4%转换为对数记录法,另外有14.0%的论文直接采用对数记录法.C刊中采用平均值、标准差和中位数的比例分别为8.3%、6.1%和0%,而A刊分别为31.0%、16.8%和14.0%.C刊使用t检验或方差分析的比例只有5.3%,而A刊为19.0%.C刊采用图表描述视力和用表格列出全部患者视力的比例分别为2.3%和6.8%,A刊则分别为14.2%和24.9%.结论 C刊主要是采用小数记录法,而A刊除了采用分数记录法外,也有相当部分采用对数记录法,或者将分数记录法转换为对数记录法;A刊的论文更多采用平均值、标准差、中位数、t检验、方差分析等统计学分析方法,更多使用图表描述视力和使用表格列出所有患者视力资料.     

中华眼科杂志2001至2004年引文分析

目的研究中华眼科杂志文献引用规律及我国眼科学研究领域科研人员的文献利用与需求特征。方法采用引文计量分析法,统计中华眼科杂志2001至2004年间刊载的926篇论文所引用的参考文献(引文)。结果926篇论文中,有引文的论文共850篇,引文率为91．79％,篇均引文8．05条;引文中期刊912种(91．97％),图书266种(7．85％);普赖斯指数35．50％;期刊自引626条,自引率8．40％。被引用频次居前17位的中、外文期刊的引文量占总引用期刊引文量的54．03％。结论中华眼科杂志涉猎文献范围广,引文类型以期刊为主,语种以英文文献为多,引文的外文语种结构较为单一,研究引用文献比较滞后,文献半衰期较长,专业人员利用近5年内新文献的能力有待于进一步提高。     

The journal impact factor in ophthalmological publications

The journal impact factor, calculated annually by Thomson Scientific (Connecticut, USA), is widely used for many functions including the process of academic evaluation. This article reviews the current trend of the impact factor of journals dedicated to ophthalmology. Journals publishing a larger volume of articles on a broad range of topics, such as Archives of Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology, and Ophthalmology, rank at the top in this aspect, and the majority of journals from the Europe and Japan have a lower impact factor. It is desirable to keep in mind inherent drawbacks of the journal impact factor and to use it wisely when assessing a person for tenure or grant.     

How evidence-based are publications in clinical ophthalmic journals?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the methodological quality and level of evidence of publications in four leading general clinical ophthalmology journals. METHODS: All 1919 articles published in the American Journal of Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology, British Journal of Ophthalmology, and Ophthalmology in 2004 were reviewed. The methodological rigor and the level of evidence in the articles were rated according to the McMaster Hedges Project criteria and the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence. RESULTS: Overall, 196 (24.4%) of the 804 publications that were included for assessment met the Hedges criteria. Articles on economics evaluation and those on prognosis achieved the highest passing rate, with 80.0% and 74.4% of articles, respectively, meeting the Hedges criteria. Publications on etiology, diagnosis, and treatment fared less well, with respective passing rates of 28.3%, 20.2%, and 14.7%. Published systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were uncommon in the ophthalmic literature, at least in these four journals during 2004. According to the Oxford criteria, 57.6% of the articles were classified as level 4 evidence compared with 18.1% classified as level 1. Articles on prognosis had the highest proportion (43.0%) rated as level 1 evidence. Generally, articles that reached the Hedges threshold were rated higher on the level-of-evidence scale (Spermans rho = 0.73; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of publications in the clinical ophthalmic literature was comparable to that in the literature of other specialties. There was substantial heterogeneity in quality between different types of articles. Future methodological improvements should focus on the areas identified as having the largest deficiencies.     

Citation patterns in the optometric and ophthalmologic clinical binocular vision literature.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare citation patterns in the clinical binocular vision literature of optometry and ophthalmology. METHODS: The author conducted citation analysis of two current clinical binocular vision textbooks from optometry and two from ophthalmology and of articles published in the years 2000 to 2004 in optometry and ophthalmology journals. Topical parameters for inclusion of sources were diagnosis and management of nonstrabismic binocular vision disorders, diagnosis and management of nonpresbyopic ocular accommodation disorders, and procedures for examining such conditions. These topical parameters were chosen because they are areas in which the diagnostic procedures and treatment options available to members of the two professions are not delineated by their respective scopes of practice. RESULTS: The most frequently cited journals in the optometric publications were optometry journals (63% of citations in the optometry textbooks and 58% in the optometry journal articles). The most frequently cited journals in the ophthalmology publications were ophthalmology journals (79% of citations in the ophthalmology textbooks and 49% in the ophthalmology journal articles). Each discipline also cited a greater variety of journals from within its own field than was cited by the other discipline. The journal with the highest total number of citations was Optometry and Vision Science (280) followed by Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics (73), American Journal of Ophthalmology (68), Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (62), and Optometry (61). CONCLUSIONS: Optometry and ophthalmology sources show more citations to materials from their own discipline than from their fellow discipline in the area of nonstrabismic binocular vision disorders and nonpresbyopic accommodative disorders. Reasons may include lack of awareness of the literature of the other discipline, bias toward the literature of one's own discipline, or bias against the literature of another discipline. It is also likely that the diagnostic and management strategies of the two professions are significantly different, although scope of practice would not constrain the range of strategies for the conditions chosen as the topical matter for consideration in this study. The journals found to be most frequently cited in this study should help to identify the core journals in this area of clinical binocular vision.     

Japan's share of published research in ophthalmology

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to determine Japan's share of published research in ophthalmology during the last decade. METHODS: Ophthalmology journals with higher impact factors were accessed through the Medline database to elicit the number of articles published in 1991-2000 that originated in various countries, including Japan. The proportion of articles with a higher grade of evidence (randomized controlled trials/clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies) was determined for Japan and compared with the average values of the total articles published in these journals. In addition, the percentage of published research from the 20 top-ranking countries was calculated, showing the trend over time. RESULTS: Of the total articles (21,327), Japan's share in the selected ophthalmology journals was 6.5% (1,387 articles), ranking third in the world, following the USA (51.5%) and the UK (11.3%). The recent increase in the share was statistically significant for Japan (P =.01). However, the proportionate value of clinical research evidence was lower for Japan-originated articles than the average value for the total clinical research articles in these journals. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate measures should be taken in the ophthalmology field in Japan to increase the number of clinical research papers with a higher grade of evidence.     

《眼科学报》的2011

     2011 is an opportune time for Yanke Xuebao (Eye Science) to launch its bilingual edition as a platform for cooperation between Chinese and international vision researchers. The yearly research output of Chinese investigators in all fields of science, but particularly biomedicine, has been growing recently by leaps and bounds. As an example, the American Journal of Ophthalmology (AJO), one of the most prestigious clinical journals in our field, received more submissions from East Asian authors (Japan, China and Korea alone) than they did from the United States in 2010. Chinese investigators ranked third on the list, climbing rapidly, only after the US and Japan. Top vision research centers in China, such as Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, where Eye Science is published, now rank alongside Moorfields and Johns Hopkins as among the most prolific institutions in the world, measured by articles appearing annually in peer-reviewed SCI journals.       

我国4种眼科学术期刊中视力相关问题的统计与分析

目的 了解《中华眼科杂志》《中国实用眼科杂志》《中华眼底病杂志》《眼视光学杂志》4种期刊中有关视力方面问题的统计.方法 仔细阅读2008年在这4种期刊中刊出的所有论文,记录每一篇论文的特征,包括是否提及视力、是否以视力作为结果、使用的视力表类型、视力检查细节、远近视力、视力矫正方式、视力记录法、视力的描述性统计等,采用Excel 2003软件对数据进行分类、整理、归纳和求百分比.结果 2008年这4种期刊共发表论文1111篇,提及视力的有476篇,以视力为结果的有237篇.在这237篇中,51篇提到其所使用的视力表类型,其中国际标准视力表占43.1%,标准对数视力表占29.4%;155篇提到了视力矫正方式,以最佳矫正为主;213篇在论文中体现了其所使用的视力记录法,小数记录法占75.1%,5分记录法占10.1%;216篇论文对视力进行了描述性统计,对视力进行分级的占66.7%,以均数±标准差表示的占24.5%.结论 国内眼科学术期刊在书写视力检查细节方面,特别是对视力数据的描述性统计方面还存在较大问题.加强我国眼科医生的眼视光学基础知识培训迫在眉睫,同时相关期刊编辑也需重视对该方面问题的审读.     

近10a中国作者发表在眼科SCI期刊的文章情况调查

自"视觉2020"行动发起已有10a余.尽管中国的文章总量在20强国家中排第五位,但各地区的文章分布尚不清楚.本文比较来自中国三个主要地区:大陆、香港和台湾在这10a内发表在国际期刊上的眼科文章情况.检索2000/2009年的PubMed数据库,分别对文章的数量,影响因子(IF)和顶级杂志发表文章数量进行比较.从2000/2009年,中国发表共计 2 493篇眼科相关文章,其中大陆1 076篇,台湾784篇,香港633篇.三个地区发表的文章数量随时间推移有所增加(从99到491).自2006年开始,大陆发表的文章总数超过了香港及台湾.大陆累计影响因子2 565.108分,高于台湾(1 794.049)和香港(1 544.021),但香港在平均影响因子分值方面最高.通过研究发现,近10a来大陆在SCI期刊发表文章的数量有很大的飞跃,并缩小了与台湾和香港之间的差距.     

Comparison of visual performance between extended depth of focus contact lens and single-vision contact lens in eyes with monofocal intraocular lens

Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology - To assess the visual performance of extended depth of focus (EDF) contact lenses (CL) in eyes that had undergone monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation,...