Goss David A
School of Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405-3680, USA.
Optom Vis Sci. 2006 Dec;83(12):895-902. doi: 10.1097/01.opx.0000249975.40993.f9.
The purpose of this study is to compare citation patterns in the clinical binocular vision literature of optometry and ophthalmology.
The author conducted citation analysis of two current clinical binocular vision textbooks from optometry and two from ophthalmology and of articles published in the years 2000 to 2004 in optometry and ophthalmology journals. Topical parameters for inclusion of sources were diagnosis and management of nonstrabismic binocular vision disorders, diagnosis and management of nonpresbyopic ocular accommodation disorders, and procedures for examining such conditions. These topical parameters were chosen because they are areas in which the diagnostic procedures and treatment options available to members of the two professions are not delineated by their respective scopes of practice.
The most frequently cited journals in the optometric publications were optometry journals (63% of citations in the optometry textbooks and 58% in the optometry journal articles). The most frequently cited journals in the ophthalmology publications were ophthalmology journals (79% of citations in the ophthalmology textbooks and 49% in the ophthalmology journal articles). Each discipline also cited a greater variety of journals from within its own field than was cited by the other discipline. The journal with the highest total number of citations was Optometry and Vision Science (280) followed by Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics (73), American Journal of Ophthalmology (68), Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (62), and Optometry (61).
Optometry and ophthalmology sources show more citations to materials from their own discipline than from their fellow discipline in the area of nonstrabismic binocular vision disorders and nonpresbyopic accommodative disorders. Reasons may include lack of awareness of the literature of the other discipline, bias toward the literature of one's own discipline, or bias against the literature of another discipline. It is also likely that the diagnostic and management strategies of the two professions are significantly different, although scope of practice would not constrain the range of strategies for the conditions chosen as the topical matter for consideration in this study. The journals found to be most frequently cited in this study should help to identify the core journals in this area of clinical binocular vision.
本研究旨在比较验光与眼科临床双眼视觉文献中的引用模式。
作者对两本当前的验光临床双眼视觉教科书、两本眼科临床双眼视觉教科书以及2000年至2004年发表在验光和眼科期刊上的文章进行了引用分析。纳入资料的主题参数为非斜视性双眼视觉障碍的诊断与管理、非老视性眼调节障碍的诊断与管理以及此类病症的检查程序。选择这些主题参数是因为在这些领域中，两个专业人员可用的诊断程序和治疗选项并未由各自的执业范围明确界定。
验光出版物中最常被引用的期刊是验光期刊（在验光教科书中占引用的63%，在验光期刊文章中占58%）。眼科出版物中最常被引用的期刊是眼科期刊（在眼科教科书中占引用的79%，在眼科期刊文章中占49%）。每个学科引用本领域内期刊的种类也比另一学科引用的更多。被引用总数最高的期刊是《验光与视觉科学》（280次），其次是《眼科与生理光学》（73次）、《美国眼科杂志》（68次）、《眼科研究与视觉科学》（62次）和《验光》（61次）。
在非斜视性双眼视觉障碍和非老视性调节障碍领域中，验光和眼科资料引用本学科资料比引用另一学科资料更多。原因可能包括对另一学科文献缺乏了解、对本学科文献的偏好或对另一学科文献的偏见。两个专业的诊断和管理策略也可能存在显著差异，尽管执业范围不会限制本研究中作为主题事项所选择病症的策略范围。本研究中发现最常被引用的期刊应有助于确定该临床双眼视觉领域的核心期刊。
