File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: How evidence-based are publications in clinical ophthalmic journals?

TitleHow evidence-based are publications in clinical ophthalmic journals?
Authors
Issue Date2006
PublisherAssociation for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.iovs.org
Citation
Investigative Ophthalmology And Visual Science, 2006, v. 47 n. 5, p. 1831-1838 How to Cite?
AbstractPURPOSE. 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 ρ = 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. Copyright © Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/86832
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.427
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.008
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLai, TYYen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLeung, GMen_HK
dc.contributor.authorWong, VWYen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLam, RFen_HK
dc.contributor.authorCheng, ACOen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLam, DSCen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T09:21:52Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-06T09:21:52Z-
dc.date.issued2006en_HK
dc.identifier.citationInvestigative Ophthalmology And Visual Science, 2006, v. 47 n. 5, p. 1831-1838en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0146-0404en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/86832-
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE. 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 ρ = 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. Copyright © Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherAssociation for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.iovs.orgen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofInvestigative Ophthalmology and Visual Scienceen_HK
dc.subject.meshBiomedical Research - standardsen_HK
dc.subject.meshClinical Trials as Topic - standardsen_HK
dc.subject.meshEvidence-Based Medicine - standardsen_HK
dc.subject.meshHumansen_HK
dc.subject.meshJournalism, Medical - standardsen_HK
dc.subject.meshOphthalmology - standardsen_HK
dc.subject.meshPeriodicals as Topic - standardsen_HK
dc.subject.meshQuality Controlen_HK
dc.subject.meshResearch Design - standardsen_HK
dc.titleHow evidence-based are publications in clinical ophthalmic journals?en_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0146-0404&volume=47&issue=5&spage=1831&epage=1838&date=2006&atitle=How+evidence-based+are+publications+in+clinical+ophthalmic+journals?en_HK
dc.identifier.emailLeung, GM:gmleung@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityLeung, GM=rp00460en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1167/iovs.05-0915en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid16638988-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-33744730764en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros116106en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-33744730764&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume47en_HK
dc.identifier.issue5en_HK
dc.identifier.spage1831en_HK
dc.identifier.epage1838en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000237451100017-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLai, TYY=7202203581en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLeung, GM=7007159841en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWong, VWY=14420327300en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLam, RF=7101916693en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridCheng, ACO=14827706400en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLam, DSC=35500200200en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats