Full threshold vs. Swedish interactive threshold algorithm (SITA) em pacientes glaucomatosos submetidos à perimetria computadorizada pela primeira vez

PURPOSE: To compare the Full Threshold (FT) and SITA Standard (SS) strategies in glaucomatous patients undergoing automated perimetry for the first time. METHODS: Thirty-one glaucomatous patients who had never undergone perimetry underwent automated perimetry (Humphrey, program 30-2) with both FT and SS on the same day, with an interval of at least 15 minutes. The order of the examination was randomized, and only one eye per patient was analyzed. Three analyses were performed: a) all the examinations, regardless of the order of application; b) only the first examinations; c) only the second examinations. In order to calculate the sensitivity of both strategies, the following criteria were used to define abnormality: glaucoma hemifield test (GHT) outside normal limits, pattern standard deviation (PSD) <5%, or a cluster of 3 adjacent points with p<5% at the pattern deviation probability plot. RESULTS: When the results of all examinations were analyzed regardless of the order in which they were performed, the number of depressed points with p<0.5% in the pattern deviation probability map was significantly greater with SS (p=0.037), and the sensitivities were 87.1% for SS and 77.4% for FT (p=0.506). When only the first examinations were compared, there were no statistically significant differences regarding the number of depressed points, but the sensitivity of SS (100%) was significantly greater than that obtained with FT (70.6%) (p=0.048). When only the second examinations were compared, there were no statistically significant differences regarding the number of depressed points, and the sensitivities of SS (76.5%) and FT (85.7%) (p=0.664). CONCLUSION: SS may have a higher sensitivity than FT in glaucomatous patients undergoing automated perimetry for the first time. However, this difference tends to disappear in subsequent examinations.

Influence of English language in the number of citations of articles published in Brazilian journals of Ophthalmology

PURPOSE: To determine the association between language and number of citations of ophthalmology articles published in Brazilian journals. METHODS: This study was a systematic review. Original articles were identified by review of documents published at the two Brazilian ophthalmology journals indexed at Science Citation Index Expanded - SCIE [Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia (ABO) and Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (RBO)]. All document types (articles and reviews) listed at SCIE in English (English Group) or in Portuguese (Portuguese Group) from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009 were included, except: editorial materials; corrections; letters; and biographical items. The primary outcome was the number of citations through the end of second year after publication date. Subgroup analysis included likelihood of citation (cited at least once versus no citation), journal, and year of publication. RESULTS: The search at the web of science revealed 382 articles [107 (28%) in the English Group and 275 (72%) in the Portuguese Group]. Of those, 297 (77.7%) were published at the ABO and 85 (23.3%) at the RBO. The citation counts were statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the English Group (1.51 - SD 1.98 - range 0 to 11) compared with the Portuguese Group (0.57 - SD 1.06 - range 0 to 7). The likelihood citation was statistically significant higher (P<0.001) in the English Group (70/107 - 65.4%) compared with the Portuguese Group (89/275 - 32.7%). There were more articles published in English at the ABO (98/297 - 32.9%) than at the RBO (9/85 - 10.6%) [P<0.001]. There were no significant difference (P=0.967) at the proportion of articles published in English at the years 2008 (48/172 - 27.9%) and 2009 (59/210 - 28.1%). CONCLUSION: The number of citations of articles published in Portuguese at Brazilian ophthalmology journals is lower than the published in English. The results of this study suggest that the editorial boards should strongly encourage the authors to adopt English as the main language in their future articles.