Haoyu Chen1, Vishal Jhanji. 1. Joint Shantou International Eye Center, Shantou University & The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shantou, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyse the types of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the field of ophthalmology. METHODS: The systematic reviews and meta-analysis in ophthalmology published in peer-reviewed journals were retrieved. The distribution of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in various ophthalmic subspecialties, type of study and country of origin were determined. RESULTS: A total of 533 records were identified as systematic reviews and meta-analysis in ophthalmology. Overall, retina and glaucoma were the two major subspecialties accounting for 35% and 21% of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses, respectively. The major topics published in retina were age-related macular degeneration (37%), tumours (14%), and diabetic retinopathy (12%). More than half (56%) the systematic reviews and meta-analyses were interventional. The author affiliations of these studies were largely from the USA (30%) and the UK (22%). About 60% of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses were published in ophthalmology journals, followed by the Cochrane Library (15.75%) and other non-ophthalmic journals (25.14%), respectively. The number of publications increased from 3 per year in 1994 to almost 100 per year in 2010. CONCLUSIONS: The number of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses has been increasing progressively over the past few years. Retina and glaucoma are the two most commonly published topics. Non-ophthalmology journals form a sizeable proportion of avenues for ophthalmic publications.
PURPOSE: To analyse the types of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the field of ophthalmology. METHODS: The systematic reviews and meta-analysis in ophthalmology published in peer-reviewed journals were retrieved. The distribution of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in various ophthalmic subspecialties, type of study and country of origin were determined. RESULTS: A total of 533 records were identified as systematic reviews and meta-analysis in ophthalmology. Overall, retina and glaucoma were the two major subspecialties accounting for 35% and 21% of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses, respectively. The major topics published in retina were age-related macular degeneration (37%), tumours (14%), and diabetic retinopathy (12%). More than half (56%) the systematic reviews and meta-analyses were interventional. The author affiliations of these studies were largely from the USA (30%) and the UK (22%). About 60% of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses were published in ophthalmology journals, followed by the Cochrane Library (15.75%) and other non-ophthalmic journals (25.14%), respectively. The number of publications increased from 3 per year in 1994 to almost 100 per year in 2010. CONCLUSIONS: The number of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses has been increasing progressively over the past few years. Retina and glaucoma are the two most commonly published topics. Non-ophthalmology journals form a sizeable proportion of avenues for ophthalmic publications.