"The 100 Most Frequently Cited Articles in Ophthalmology Journals"

[Kashf Oyoun]

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]It would be great if someone could get copyright permission(s) to put these 100 most-cited articles in Ophthalmology together in a textbook as a way to sum up some of the most important advances in the field in the last 3 decades.

I wish I would of thought of doing a study like this! This article has some useful information; it lists the institutions from which these highly cited articles frequently came (1. Hopkins, 2. Harvard, 3. Wisconsin) , as well as investigators who published these articles most frequently (1. H. A. Quigley, 2. B.E. Klein, 3. R. Klein). Thinking of where to do research or who to work with??? But, keep in mind this is historical information, and things may be different now (I'm sure places wax and wane in their productivity, people retire, etc...).

For those concerned about the future of Ophthalmology, I'd suggest looking back at the recent history of the field to see how drastically things can change!
.[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
The 100 Most Frequently Cited Articles in Ophthalmology Journals. [FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] Norio Ohba, MD; Kumiko Nakao, MD; Yasushi Isashiki, MD; Ayako Ohba, MA .

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125:952-960. .
[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] We screened 46 ophthalmology journals to identify the most frequently cited articles using the Science Citation Index Expanded (1975 to 2006). The 100 most-cited articles were published in 13 journals, most in the Archives of Ophthalmology (n = 30), followed by Ophthalmology (n = 27) and the American Journal of Ophthalmology (n = 11), and originated from 10 countries, led by the United States (n = 86). The topics covered by these classic articles included epidemiology of age-related macular degeneration and glaucoma, description of new diseases including cytomegalovirus retinitis, optical coherence tomography, hypotensive medications in glaucoma, laser photocoagulation to treat diabetic retinopathy and subfoveal choroidal neovascularization, photorefractive surgery, and vitrectomy to treat idiopathic macular hole. The most frequently cited articles provide a historical perspective in the scientific advancement of ophthalmology during the last 3decades.


.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[qwopty99]

I've read it. It's an interesting article.

I have to admit though, that I was turned off by one aspect of it (and I don't think anyone can necessarily blame me for this). They list the authors of the studies including their degrees. But the OD authors don't have any mention of their OD. So you have MDs, PhDs, and non-degreed authors (ODs).

Again, I don't think I'm being overly "sensitive", but when I read it, it just seemed unnecessarily_politicized. And I find it somewhat ironic that in Japan, there is no optometry, so I don't really see what issue they would have with optometrists. Why be confrontational about an issue that no one has likely ever confronted you with? I'm sure they're aware of the political battles being fought elsewhere, but it seems they have chosen to be partisan, and are doing so by throwing dirt. Are they suggesting ODs are uneducated? Or that the OD isn't a real degree? It's quite hard to respect that, given how "little" we should expect them to understand the situation.


FWIW, OVS (Optom Vis Sci) published one of the top 100 articles, and there are a small handful of ODs who authored some of the top 100 papers.

 

[Incandescent]

I've read it. It's an interesting article.

I have to admit though, that I was turned off by one aspect of it (and I don't think anyone can necessarily blame me for this). They list the authors of the studies including their degrees. But the OD authors don't have any mention of their OD. So you have MDs, PhDs, and non-degreed authors (ODs).

Again, I don't think I'm being overly "sensitive", but when I read it, it just seemed unnecessarily_politicized. And I find it somewhat ironic that in Japan, there is no optometry, so I don't really see what issue they would have with optometrists. Why be confrontational about an issue that no one has likely ever confronted you with? I'm sure they're aware of the political battles being fought elsewhere, but it seems they have chosen to be partisan, and are doing so by throwing dirt. Are they suggesting ODs are uneducated? Or that the OD isn't a real degree? It's quite hard to respect that, given how "little" we should expect them to understand the situation.


FWIW, OVS (Optom Vis Sci) published one of the top 100 articles, and there are a small handful of ODs who authored some of the top 100 papers.

admittedly, i know very little about this....I know in some countries the optometry degree is actually a bachelor's degree. Was this the case for the optometrists in this study - were they from countries where they were awarded a bachelor's degree for their study of optometry? Generally Bachelor's level degrees are not listed in the author bloc.

Perhaps this is the reason? It may not be a political issue at all.....

 

[qwopty99]

That is a fair question, but the answer is here:



http://img241.imageshack.us/my.php?image=opt100gp2.jpg


As you can see, there are some non-degreed folks.

The one that made me notice in particular, is

I.L. Bailey.

I think that's referring to this person (an OD, MS I think):

http://vision.berkeley.edu/vsp/content/faculty/facprofiles/bailey.html

I don't know who the other non-degreed folks are, but I just basically assume they are probably optometry-affiliated too.


It's kinda weird. If you were the editor or reviewers at Arch, wouldn't you have noticed this? And isn't this something you'd at least make a comment on? I mean, the responsibility remains with the authors, but it doesn't cast Arch in a good light either. It really seems to be unnecessary mud-slinging.

 

[Kashf Oyoun]

The OD degree, just like the MD, PhD and Master degree should have been documented; it's a professional degree, and a doctorate no less!

Incidentally, other "non-degree" individuals on the list included:

Richard W. Young, Ph.D. (Jules Stein)
Abraham Spector, Ph.D. (Columbia)

Thus, their PhDs were omitted.

That stated, it may not have been a deliberate statement regarding ODs in their paper.

 

[qwopty99]

True.

There exists (according to google) a Paul Mitchell, MBBS, MD, PhD who is a retinal ophthalmologist based in Australia. Not sure if that's the same guy.


Anyhoos - you're right - I might have jumped the gun. The first time I saw the list, I saw Bailey, of Bailey-Lovie chart fame, and he wasn't degreed. And I knew he was an OD, so given the presence of some minor degrees on there (e.g. MHS), I thought there was some funny business going on.

It could just be the case the authors didn't do an extensive search on academic degrees when compiling the list (which itself is a bit puzzling as to why they wouldn't).

 

[motorcity]

qwopty, if leaving out those degrees really was intentional, then I'd completely agree that it was unnecessary and insulting. That said, I can't imagine it was deliberate because those other omissions appeared a bit random.

FWIW I enjoy reading your posts and always find them well-reasoned.

 

[qwopty99]

Wow. Thanks a lot.

I know I'd never be voted most popular poster on these forums, but I'm not the type to deny facts for the sake of political correctness.