Publication and citation in ophthalmology: glaucoma and the water‐provocation test – wring out the old and ring in the new?
J. Fan,C. McGhee
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2008.01787.x
2008-05-01
Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
Abstract:The water-provocation test was first developed in the late 1920s and was thought to be a seminal technique for detecting patients with glaucoma. During the seventh and eighth decades of the last century, research on the water-drinking test reached a height in popularity that subsequently receded, possibly due to the appearance of newer computerized technologies in glaucoma management and a waning clinical enthusiasm for the technique. However, perhaps just as we were starting to believe that the water-drinking test was an antiquated technique consigned to a less-travelled corridor of history, it appears that there is a resurgence in its application in twenty-first century clinical ophthalmology. The informed reader may ponder: is the cyclical trend so prominently seen in our popular culture with the rediscovery and ‘re-invention’ of classic movies and pop-songs now mirrored by ophthalmic techniques and research publications? As the relentless ‘publish or perish’ culture of research continues and with the increasing convenience of electronic journal submission, publication and access to periodicals, it may at times appear that we lose sight of the wood for the trees. A corollary to the increasing interest in citation patterns and the ‘impact’ of individual publications, as pioneered by Eugene Garfield in the 1960s, is the widespread interest and more immediate access to electronic citation analysis in ophthalmology and vision science. Indeed, recent works highlight publication patterns in these fields with an emphasis on citation analysis in order to identify authors and papers that are of true, lasting significance: Archives of Ophthalmology recently released a paper examining the 100 most-cited articles in Ophthalmology; Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology also recently published an article examining the most-published and cited authors in cataract and refractive surgery over five years. One might postulate, therefore, whether the recent upsurge of articles on the water-drinking test could simply be a sign of authors attempting to re-invent the wheel? Conducting a simple search under the term ‘water-drinking test’ as a keyword in Medline (2008), with a limit placed on articles published in the English language, only 32 relevant articles are identified. Four of these articles were published in 1950s, six in 1960s, eleven in 1970s, one in 1980s, two in 1990s, and eight so far in 2000s. Whilst this search is by no means exhaustive, it highlights a clear trend and confirms our subjective observation that the water-drinking test has curiously experienced a major revival in (published) interest following a hiatus in the 1980s and 1990s, despite the advent of more recent, computer based, hi-tech assessments of the optic nerve and nerve fibre layer. In order to investigate whether this citation pattern might be recurrent in other areas of ophthalmic research undergoing renewed interest, a separate search was therefore conducted in the field of corneal transplantation using a currently popular topic area, ‘lamellar keratoplasty’. This search identified 454 English language articles, one of which was published in the 1950s, 14 in the 1960s, 25 in the 1970s, 40 in the 1980s, 121 in the 1990s, and 253 in the 2000s. These results are compared to the Medline keywords for the established procedure ‘penetrating keratoplasty’ and for topic balance ‘laser trabeculoplasty’ in Table 1. One can observe that within this sample group, the relative paucity of publication with a virtual hiatus and bimodal distribution is unique to the waterdrinking test, while for lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty article numbers have increased almost exponentially, although for laser trabeculoplasty, albeit with a shorter publication history, publication numbers are high but slowly decreasing. Of the 32 published articles considering the water-drinking test, these have been cited a mean of 10.26 times (range 10–49). As most articles are only cited once or twice, if at all, a mean citation count of 10 may be significant. Therefore, perhaps the unusual publication pattern of the water-drinking test is not entirely arbitrary. One might postulate that the reason the water-drinking has recently appeared to come back into vogue is that it has become a more refined test, not for detecting patients with glaucoma as once thought, but as a possible method for detecting patients with glaucoma who have intraocular pressure (IOP) spikes not readily identified during clinic hours. In this edition of the journal Kumar et al. have investigated this application in their well-designed pilot study examining the correlation between peak IOP measured after waterdrinking test and patients’ peak daytime IOP in subjects with glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and glaucoma-like optic discs. Whilst the population size for their study was small, a good correlation was identified between peak IOP measured by modified diurnal testing and that by the water-drinking test. Their study provides additional evidence supporting continued clinical application of the waterdrinking test in the management of glaucoma, as highlighted in recent studies comparing the IOP of medicallyand surgicallycontrolled glaucoma patients following the water-drinking test. It appears, therefore, despite the speed with which ophthalmic technology is advancing, that there is seldom anything entirely new under the sun. The water-drinking test has perhaps evolved to stand the test of time and re-invented itself as a valuable tool in glaucoma Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2008; 36: 304–305 doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2008.01787.x