HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sieving, P. C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Sieving, P. C.

The Impact of NEI-Funded Multi-Center Trials: Bibliometric Indications of Dissemination, Acceptance and Implementation of Trial Findings

Informationist, NIH Library, Bethesda, Maryland

Commerical Relationships: P.C. Sieving, None.

Support: None.

Abstract

Purpose:To use bibliometric techniques to examine the impact of 5 National Eye Institute-funded multi-center clinical trials.

Methods:Trial findings and recommendations for treatment were identified for trials of vision screening for preschool children, patching for amblyopia, supplements for age-related macular degeneration, medical vs. surgical intervention for open-angle glaucoma, and choroidal melanoma. Dissemination of the results of each trial was tracked through citations to the trials’ official reports, by citation searches of four bibliographic databases, the Cochrane Library, and one Internet resource. Acceptance and implementation of results was measured by references in guidelines, standards of care and expert panel recommendations, including those for optometrists, ophthalmologists, other physicians, nurses and allied health workers, and by economic analyses. Trial reports’ accessibility in open access sources was also examined.

Results:Reports of key findings may be cited more than 100 times, but most are cited fewer than 30 times. Reports published in non-vision journals receive fewer citations, on average. Guidelines, standards of care, and health care delivery recommendations vary in their incorporation of informed appraisal of trial findings; those directed to non-ophthalmologists and -optometrists are more likely to omit or incorrectly incorporate these findings. Inconsistencies in citation information of the original publications were identified as contributing to this problem. Few reports are available free online.

Conclusions:Improvements in the accuracy of compilations of trial findings and publications, increased numbers and use of systematic reviews, and consistency in trial authorship statements and clarity of abstract wording could enhance retrieval, dissemination and implementation of trial findings. Dissemination can also be increased by open access publications, institutional repositories, and personal and trial Websites.

Keywords: clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: treatment/prevention assessment/controlled clinical trials • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: biostatistics/epidemiology methodology

© 2007, The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc., all rights reserved. Permission to republish any abstract or part of an abstract in any form must be obtained in writing from the ARVO Office prior to publication.