ArticleBMC health services research2019
Research productivity across different ophthalmic subspecialties in the United States.
Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding perceptions of ophthalmology residents on pursuing a uveitis fellowship.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Uveitis output in high-impact clinical ophthalmology journals: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2025Article
- Characteristics of retracted articles in ophthalmology.Heliyon · 2024Article
- A scientometrics analysis and visualisation of diabetic foot research from 1955 to 2022.International wound journal · 2023Article
- Race and Gender in Ophthalmology: A National Analysis of Medical Students with Intention to Pursue the Field.Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017) · 2023Article
- The Scholarly Impact of Student Authorship in Ophthalmology.Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017) · 2023Article
- Academic background, professional experience, and research achievements of United States academic ophthalmology leadership.Irish journal of medical science · 2021Article
- The Effect of a Points System on Incentivizing Academic Behaviors of Attending Ophthalmologists.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Demographics and Productivity Trends Among Academically Affiliated Female Retina Specialists in the United States.Journal of vitreoretinal diseasesArticle
- Descriptive Analysis of Vitreoretinal Surgery Fellowship Program Directors.Journal of vitreoretinal diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare the h-index, and subsequently the research productivity, among different ophthalmic subspecialties in the United States.
methodsA cohort of over 15,000 academic ophthalmologists residing in the United States (US) was identified out of the physician list of the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Of them, 1000 ophthalmologists with at least one publication were randomly retrieved, 100 in each of the following 10 subspecialties: cataract, cornea/external disease, glaucoma, medical retina, neuro-ophthalmology, pediatric ophthalmology, plastic/reconstructive ophthalmology, refractive surgery, retina/vitreous surgery and uveitis. Data collected included: number of published papers, h-index score, annual increase in h-index and the mean number of authors on each paper.
resultsThe mean h-index amongst all subspecialties was 9.87 ± 13.90, and the mean average annual increase in h-index was 0.22 ± 0.21. The mean number of papers published was 37.20 ± 80.08 and the mean number of authors on each paper was 3.39 ± 0.84. Uveitis was the most prolific subspecialty in mean number of papers (74.78 ± 131.37), in mean h-index (16.69 ± 20.00) and in mean annual increase in h-index (0.35 ± 0.28). The least fertile subspecialty with regards to research was cataract with 11.06 ± 27.65 mean number of papers, a mean h-index of 3.89 ± 5.84, and a mean annual increase in h-index of 0.11 ± 0.11.
conclusionsThis study describes the research productivity in each ophthalmic subspecialty in the US, thus providing information on the research performance of each field and on the expected academic accomplishments within it.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.