Clinical Trials In Brazilian Journals Of Ophthalmology: Where We Are.

To compare clinical trials published in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology and in foreign journals of ophthalmology with respect to the number of citations and the quality of reporting [by applying the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement writing standards]. The sample of this systematic review comprised the two Brazilian journals of ophthalmology indexed at Science Citation Index Expanded and six of the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor® according ISI. All clinical trials (CTs) published from January 2009 to December 2010 at the Brazilians journals and a 1:1 randomized sample of the foreign journals were included. The primary outcome was the number of citations through the end of 2011. Subgroup analysis included language. The secondary outcome included likelihood of citation (cited at least once versus no citation), and presence or absence of CONSORT statement indicators. The citation counts were statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (10.50) compared with the Brazilian Group (0.45). The likelihood citation was statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (20/20 - 100%) compared with the Brazilian Group (8/20 - 40%). The subgroup analysis of the language influence in Brazilian articles showed that the citation counts were statistically significantly higher in the papers published in English (P<0.04). Of 37 possible CONSORT items, the mean for the Foreign Group was 20.55 and for the Brazilian Group was 13.65 (P<0.003). The number of citations and the quality of reporting of clinical trials in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology still are low when compared with the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor®.7621-

Influência do idioma inglês no número de citações de artigos publicados em periódicos brasileiros de Oftalmologia

PURPOSE: To determine the association between language and number of citations of ophthalmology articles published in Brazilian journals. METHODS: This study was a systematic review. Original articles were identified by review of documents published at the two Brazilian ophthalmology journals indexed at Science Citation Index Expanded - SCIE [Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia (ABO) and Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (RBO)]. All document types (articles and reviews) listed at SCIE in English (English Group) or in Portuguese (Portuguese Group) from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009 were included, except: editorial materials; corrections; letters; and biographical items. The primary outcome was the number of citations through the end of second year after publication date. Subgroup analysis included likelihood of citation (cited at least once versus no citation), journal, and year of publication. RESULTS: The search at the web of science revealed 382 articles [107 (28%) in the English Group and 275 (72%) in the Portuguese Group]. Of those, 297 (77.7%) were published at the ABO and 85 (23.3%) at the RBO. The citation counts were statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the English Group (1.51 - SD 1.98 - range 0 to 11) compared with the Portuguese Group (0.57 - SD 1.06 - range 0 to 7). The likelihood citation was statistically significant higher (P<0.001) in the English Group (70/107 - 65.4%) compared with the Portuguese Group (89/275 - 32.7%). There were more articles published in English at the ABO (98/297 - 32.9%) than at the RBO (9/85 - 10.6%) [P<0.001]. There were no significant difference (P=0.967) at the proportion of articles published in English at the years 2008 (48/172 - 27.9%) and 2009 (59/210 - 28.1%). CONCLUSION: The number of citations of articles published in Portuguese at Brazilian ophthalmology journals is lower than the published in English. The results of this study suggest that the editorial boards should strongly encourage the authors to adopt English as the main language in their future articles.OBJETIVO: Determinar a associação entre a língua e o número de citações de artigos publicados em periódicos de oftalmologia brasileiros. MÉTODOS: Este estudo foi uma revisão sistemática. Artigos originais foram identificados a partir da revisão dos documentos publicados nos dois periódicos de oftalmologia brasileiros indexados no Science Citation Index Expanded - SCIE [Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia (ABO) e Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (RBO)]. Todos os tipos de documentos (artigos e revisões) listados no SCIE em inglês (Grupo Inglês) ou em português (Grupo Português), de 1º de janeiro de 2008 a 31 de dezembro de 2009, foram incluídos, exceto: editoriais; correções; cartas; e biografias. O desfecho primário foi o número de citações até o segundo ano após a data de publicação. Análise de subgrupo incluiu probabilidade de citação (citado pelo menos uma vez contra nenhuma citação), periódico e ano da publicação. RESULTADOS: A pesquisa na Web of Science revelou 382 artigos [107 (28%) no Grupo Inglês e 275 (72%) no Grupo Português]. Destes, 297 (77,7%) foram publicados na ABO e 85 (23,3%) na RBO. O número de citações foi significativamente maior (P<0,001) no Grupo de Inglês (1,51 - DP 1,98 - faixa 0 to 11) em comparação com o Grupo Português (0,57 - DP 1,06 - faixa 0 to 7). A probabilidade de citação foi estatisticamente superior (P<0,001) no Grupo de Inglês (70/107 - 65,4%) comparado com o Grupo Português (89/275 - 32,7%). Havia mais artigos publicados em Inglês na ABO (98/297 - 32,9%) do que no RBO (9/85 - 10,6%) [P<0,001]. Não houve diferença significativa (P=0,967) na proporção de artigos publicados em Inglês nos anos de 2008 (48/172 - 27,9%) e 2009 (59/210 - 28,1%). CONCLUSÃO: O número de citações de artigos publicados em Português em periódicos brasileiros de oftalmologia é menor do que o publicado em Inglês. Os resultados deste estudo sugerem que os conselhos editoriais devem incentivar fortemente os autores a adotar o Inglês como língua principal em seus artigos futuros.262

Influence Of English Language In The Number Of Citations Of Articles Published In Brazilian Journals Of Ophthalmology.

To determine the association between language and number of citations of ophthalmology articles published in Brazilian journals. This study was a systematic review. Original articles were identified by review of documents published at the two Brazilian ophthalmology journals indexed at Science Citation Index Expanded - SCIE [Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia (ABO) and Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (RBO)]. All document types (articles and reviews) listed at SCIE in English (English Group) or in Portuguese (Portuguese Group) from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009 were included, except: editorial materials; corrections; letters; and biographical items. The primary outcome was the number of citations through the end of second year after publication date. Subgroup analysis included likelihood of citation (cited at least once versus no citation), journal, and year of publication. The search at the web of science revealed 382 articles [107 (28%) in the English Group and 275 (72%) in the Portuguese Group]. Of those, 297 (77.7%) were published at the ABO and 85 (23.3%) at the RBO. The citation counts were statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the English Group (1.51 - SD 1.98 - range 0 to 11) compared with the Portuguese Group (0.57 - SD 1.06 - range 0 to 7). The likelihood citation was statistically significant higher (P<0.001) in the English Group (70/107 - 65.4%) compared with the Portuguese Group (89/275 - 32.7%). There were more articles published in English at the ABO (98/297 - 32.9%) than at the RBO (9/85 - 10.6%) [P<0.001]. There were no significant difference (P=0.967) at the proportion of articles published in English at the years 2008 (48/172 - 27.9%) and 2009 (59/210 - 28.1%). The number of citations of articles published in Portuguese at Brazilian ophthalmology journals is lower than the published in English. The results of this study suggest that the editorial boards should strongly encourage the authors to adopt English as the main language in their future articles.7626-

Comparison of the citation characteristics between the case reports/cases series versus the other study designs in the articles published in brazilian journals of ophthalmology

Objective: To compare the citation characteristics of the case reports and the case series versus the other study designs of articles published, in 2008-2009, in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE).Methods: This study was a systematic review. Original articles were identified by review of documents published at the two Brazilians ophthalmology journals indexed at SCIE (Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia and Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia). All documents (articles and reviews) listed at SCIE from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009 were included, except: editorial materials; corrections; letters; and biographical items. The outcomes were the distributions, the number of citations (through the end of second year after publication date), the mean of the number of citations, and the likelihood of citation (cited at least once vs. no citation), according the study design of the article.Results: The search at the Web of Science revealed 382 articles. The distribution of articles according to study design was: Case Reports 106 articles (27.7%) Case Series 50 (13.1%), Sectional Studies 92 (24.1%), Clinical Trials, Phase I or Phase II 40 (10.5%), Clinical Trials, Phase III or Phase IV 29 (7.6%), Non-Systematic Reviews 33 (8.6%) and Experimental Studies 32 (8.4%). The citation count was statistically lower (P &lt; .001) in the Case Reports/Case Series (0.55 - SD 1.05) compared with the others study designs (1.04 - SD 1.63). The likelihood citation was statistically lower (P &lt; .001) in the Case Reports/Case Series (49/156 - 31.4%) compared with the others study designs (110/226 - 48.7%). Conclusion: Case reports and case series showed lower number of citations and likelihood citation than others study designs. The results of this study suggest that the editorial boards should publish only original or very rare Case Reports / Case Series with clinical significance or implications. This effort will bring benefits to the researcher, to the ophthalmologist who is looking for updating, and to the journal itselfObjetivo: Comparar as características de citação entre relatos de caso / séries de casos versus demais desenhos de estudos publicados nos periódicos brasileiros de oftalmologia indexados no Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE).Métodos: Artigos originais foram identificados a partir da revisão dos documentos publicados nos Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia ou Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia. Todos os documentos listados no SCIE, de 01/01/2008 a 31/12/2009, foram incluídos, exceto: editoriais; correções; cartas; e biografias. Os desfechos foram as distribuições, número de citações, média do número de citações e probabilidade de citação.Resultados: A pesquisa revelou 382 artigos. A distribuição dos artigos segundo desenho do estudo foram relatos de caso 106, séries de casos 50, estudos transversais 92, ensaios clínicos fase I / fase II 40, ensaios clínicos fase III / fase IV 29, revisões não-sistemáticas 33 e estudos experimentais 32. A média do número de citações foi menor (p<0,001) entre relatos de caso / séries de casos (0,55) quando comparados aos outros desenhos de estudos (1,04). A probabilidade de citação foi menor (p<0,001) entre relatos de caso/séries de casos (31,4%) quando comparados aos outros desenhos de estudos (48,7%).Conclusão: Os relatos de caso / séries de casos apresentaram média do número de citações e probabilidade de citação menores que os demais desenhos de estudo. Os resultados deste estudo sugerem que os conselhos editoriais devem publicar apenas relatos de caso / séries de casos originais ou muito raros que tenham repercussão clínica. Este esforço trará benefícios para o pesquisador, para o oftalmologista que estiver em busca de atualização e para a própria revista.071

Ensaios clínicos em periódicos brasileiros de oftalmologia: onde estamos

PURPOSE: To compare clinical trials published in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology and in foreign journals of ophthalmology with respect to the number of citations and the quality of reporting [by applying the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement writing standards]. METHODS: The sample of this systematic review comprised the two Brazilian journals of ophthalmology indexed at Science Citation Index Expanded and six of the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor® according ISI. All clinical trials (CTs) published from January 2009 to December 2010 at the Brazilians journals and a 1:1 randomized sample of the foreign journals were included. The primary outcome was the number of citations through the end of 2011. Subgroup analysis included language. The secondary outcome included likelihood of citation (cited at least once versus no citation), and presence or absence of CONSORT statement indicators. RESULTS: The citation counts were statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (10.50) compared with the Brazilian Group (0.45). The likelihood citation was statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (20/20 - 100%) compared with the Brazilian Group (8/20 - 40%). The subgroup analysis of the language influence in Brazilian articles showed that the citation counts were statistically significantly higher in the papers published in English (P<0.04). Of 37 possible CONSORT items, the mean for the Foreign Group was 20.55 and for the Brazilian Group was 13.65 (P<0.003). CONCLUSION: The number of citations and the quality of reporting of clinical trials in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology still are low when compared with the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor®.OBJETIVO: Comparar ensaios clínicos publicados em periódicos brasileiros de oftalmologia e em periódicos estrangeiros de oftalmologia em relação ao número de citações e à qualidade da informação [através da aplicação do Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement]. MÉTODOS: A amostra desta revisão sistemática abrangeu os dois periódicos brasileiras de oftalmologia indexaoas no Science Citation Index Expanded (Grupo Brasileiro) e seis dos periódicos estrangeiros de oftalmologia com maior fator de impacto de acordo com o ISI (Grupo Estrangeiro). Todos os ensaios clínicos, publicados entre janeiro de 2009 a dezembro de 2010, nos dois periódicos brasileiros e numa amostra aleatória 1:1 dos periódicos estrangeiros foram incluídos. O desfecho primário foi o número de citações até o final de 2011. A análise de subgrupos incluiu o idioma. O desfecho secundário incluiu a probabilidade de citação (citado ao menos uma vez versus não citado), e a presença ou ausência de indicadores da declaração CONSORT. RESULTADOS: O número de citações foi significativamente maior (P<0,001) no Grupo Estrangeiro (10,50) em comparação com o Grupo Brasileiro (0,45). A probabilidade de citação foi estatisticamente superior (P<0,001) no Grupo Estrangeiro (20/20-100%) comparado com o Grupo Brasileiro (8/20-41%). A análise de subgrupo sobre a influência da língua em artigos Brasileiros mostrou que o número de citações foi significativamente maior nos artigos publicados em Inglês (P<0,04). Dos 37 itens do CONSORT possíveis, a média para o Grupo Estrangeiro foi de 20,55 e para o Grupo Brasileiro foi 13,65 (P<0,003). CONCLUSÃO: O número de citações e a qualidade da redação dos ensaios clínicos em periódicos Brasileiros de oftalmologia ainda são baixos quando comparados com os periódicos estrangeiros de oftalmologia com mais alto fator de impacto