Peer-reviewed publications by CUA members: then and now.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the characteristics of publications by members of the Canadian Urological Association (CUA) over a 10-year period.

METHODS

All publications by active CUA members during the periods January 1993-December 1994 and January 2003-December 2004 were reviewed.

RESULTS

Of the 487 active members in 1993-1994, 130 (26.7%) were authors a total of 649 times in 641 publications. External funding was acknowledged in 195 (30.4%). There were 131 observational studies (20.4%), 127 review articles (19.8%), 58 case reports (9.0%), 37 case series (5.8%), and 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (3.3%). Of the 454 active member in 2003-2004, 139 (30.6%) were authors a total of 748 times in 705 publications. External funding was acknowledged in 237 (33.6%). There were 153 observational studies (21.7%), 124 review articles (17.6%), 52 case reports (7.4%), 49 case series (7.0%), and 46 RCTs (6.5%). There were significantly more RCTs and clinical trials in 2003-2004. The most common journal was The Journal of Urology in both eras. There were significantly more publications in The Canadian Journal of Urology, the British Journal of Urology International and the Journal of Endourology in 2003-2004. There were significantly more publications acknowledging industry funding and more publications citing more than 1 CUA member in 2003-2004. Publication intensity increased significantly from 0.67 to 0.82 publications per member, per year for the CUA as a whole.

INTERPRETATION

Scholarly activity has remained robust over the last decade with over 30% of active CUA members contributing to peer-reviewed literature. Higher levels of evidence are now observed with a greater number of RCTs. CUA members should be proud of their academic productivity.