Précis:
Publications in glaucoma have seen an increase in the number of authors and disclosures per article, authors with dual degrees, and international authors, but contributions of women to articles published remains low.
Purpose:
Authorship trends have been studied across many medical specialties and in ophthalmology as a whole, but not specifically in glaucoma. The authors explored the authorship trends of original scientific articles in the Journal of Glaucoma.
Materials and Methods:
The authors recorded the number of authors and disclosures per article, degree type of first and last authors, geographical origin of the corresponding author, and sex of first and last authors of original content from the Journal of Glaucoma published in 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017.
Results:
A total of 642 articles were analyzed. From 1992 to 2017, annual published articles increased from 38 to 242 (P=0.02), the mean number of authors per article increased from 3.2 to 5.2 (P<0.01), the mean number of disclosures per article increased from 0.3 to 1.0 (P=0.04), the proportion of first and last authors with dual degrees (medical plus advanced degrees) also increased (both P<0.03), whereas the proportion with a sole medical degree decreased (both P<0.05). There was a proportional decrease in articles from North America (P=0.03), and proportional increase from the “Far East” (P=0.04) and “Other” regions (P=0.04). No significant changes in proportions of female first and last authors were found (both P>0.28).
Conclusions:
Consistent with authorship trends across various other medical specialties, glaucoma has seen an increase in the number of authors and disclosures per article, authors with dual degrees, and authors from the “Far East” and “Other” regions. However, contributions of women to articles published in Journal of Glaucoma remain low.
IntroductionGenicular nerve radiofrequency ablation (GNRFA) is a minimally invasive intervention for patients with chronic knee pain (CKP) not responding to conservative treatments. Few investigations have compared treatment outcomes of cooled-RFA (c-RFA) and thermal-RFA (t-RFA), two common approaches of GNRFA. This study aims to investigate and compare outcomes, including probability of treatment success, between c-RFA and t-RFA in patients with CKP.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed a total of 208 propensity score matched patients, including 104 patients who received c-RFA and 104 patients who received t-RFA. The primary outcome was probability of pain relief after the procedure, defined as reduction in Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain score of 2 or greater. The secondary outcomes were degree of NRS pain score reductions, duration of relief, and the probability of patients receiving TKA within 1 year of treatment.ResultsT-RFA was associated with a higher probability of pain relief within 1, 3, and 6 months after procedure when compared with c-RFA. Probabilities of pain relief from t-RFA and c-RFA were 62% (95% CI 51% to 71%) and 43% (95% CI 34% to 53%; p=0.01) within 1 month, 78% (95% CI 68% to 85%) and 55% (95% CI 45% to 64%; p<0.001) within 3 months, and 79% (95% CI 70% to 86%) and 59% (95% CI 49% to 68%; p<0.01) within 6 months, respectively. t-RFA was also associated with greater mean NRS pain score reduction at 1 month after procedure: −4.71 (95% CI −5.3 to −4.1) when compared with −3.59 (95% CI −4.3 to −2.9; p=0.02) from c-RFA. T-RFA and c-RFA were comparable in pain score reduction at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after procedure. Both groups demonstrated comparable duration of relief and probability of patients receiving TKA within 1 year.DiscussionBoth t-RFA and c-RFA effectively reduced NRS pain scores in most patients with CKP within the 1 year follow-up period. Genicular nerve t-RFA was associated with a higher probability of treatment success and a greater degree of pain relief at 1 month after the procedure when compared with c-RFA in propensity score matched patients with CKP.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.