May 2007
Volume 48, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2007
The Impact of NEI-Funded Multi-Center Trials: Bibliometric Indications of Dissemination, Acceptance and Implementation of Trial Findings
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • P. C. Sieving
    Informationist, NIH Library, Bethesda, Maryland
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships P.C. Sieving, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2007, Vol.48, 2389. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      P. C. Sieving; The Impact of NEI-Funded Multi-Center Trials: Bibliometric Indications of Dissemination, Acceptance and Implementation of Trial Findings. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2007;48(13):2389.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

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 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.