Citation patterns in the optometric and ophthalmologic clinical binocular vision literature

Purpose. The purpose of this study is to compare citation patterns in the clinical binocular vision literature of optometry and ophthalmology. Methods. 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. Results. 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). Conclusions. 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.