Characterizing Research Impact in Ophthalmology: A Scoping Review

The lack of standardization in assessing research impact makes it challenging to accurately define, assess, and differentiate impactful ophthalmic research. This scoping review characterized the most frequently used metrics to evaluate research impact in ophthalmology.

Following the updated Joanna Briggs Institute framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, we reviewed 1100 studies from 1955 to 2023 across CENTRAL, EconLit, Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases. Included studies were English-language publications that applied at least one metric to evaluate research impact at the article-, author-, institutional-, journal-, or country-level in ophthalmic research. Studies were eligible if they were authored or co-authored by an ophthalmologist or had author affiliation with an ophthalmology department, regardless of journal type. Editorials were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the modified Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence, which ranks evidence on a scale from Level 1 (highest quality) to Level 5 (lowest), based on study design and methodological rigor.

A total of 77 studies were included; 17 metrics were identified. Citation Count (30%), Publication Count (22%), Impact Factor (17%), and Hirsch index (14%) were the leading metrics. Metrics were primarily (82%) quantitative and most assessed impact at the article- (26%) and the journal-levels (23%). Most studies (94%) had Level 4 evidence.

This study highlights the need for a comprehensive and standardized approach to accurately assess ophthalmic research impact.