Factors Affecting the Use of Medical Articles for Citation and Academic Reference.

Introduction: Increases in publication quantity and the onset of open access have increased the complexity of conducting a literature search. Bibliometric markers, like impact factor (IF), have traditionally been used to help identify high-quality research. These markers exist amongst a variety of other factors, which poses the following question: what factors are examined when considering articles for clinical and academic research? Objective: To determine what factors are involved when authors choose citations to include in their publications. Methods: A voluntary and anonymous questionnaire-based survey was distributed to medical students, residents, and faculty from multiple medical schools across Canada during the 2020/2021 academic year. Survey ratings were scored on a 5-point Likert scale and open word response. Results: The study collected 156 complete sets of responses including 78 trainees (61 medical students and 17 residents), and 78 faculty. Language of the article (3.93) and availability on PubMed/Medline (3.77) were found more important than country of origin (2.14), institution (2.26), and IF (2.97). Trainees found the following factors more important than faculty: year of publication (3.94 vs 3.47, p = 0.0016), availability on Google/Google Scholar (2.51 vs 1.88, p = 0.0013), Open-access (2.46 vs 1.87, p = 0.0011), and Free access (2.73 vs 2.31, p = 0.049). Conclusion: Our study identified differences in faculty and trainee literature search preferences, bias towards English language publications, and the movement towards online literature sources. This knowledge provides insight into what biases individuals may be exposed to based on their language and literature search preferences. Future areas of research include how trainees' opinions change over time, identifying trainee ability to recognize predatory journals, and the need for better online journal article translators to mitigate the language bias. We believe this will lead to higher quality evidence and optimal patient care amongst healthcare workers.

K-RIM (Corneal Rim) Angle Surgery Training Model.

PURPOSE: To develop an angle surgery training model for training an array of microincisional glaucoma surgery (MIGS) procedures. METHODS: We describe a method for preparing an angle surgery training model using human cadaveric corneoscleral rims. The model provides realistic tactile tissue simulation and excellent angle visualization requiring bimanual technique. Corneoscleral rims may be used multiple times and are prepared at low cost, allowing for a high volume of practice surgeries. RESULTS: This model allows for practice in bimanual surgical training using the gonioscopy lens for visualize alongside surgical tools. The in vivo surgical conditions and limited tactile feedback are recreated using human cadaveric eyes which nonhuman models fail to provide. Our model is prepared at low cost, with relative ease and also provides appropriate positioning of Schlemm canal and for high volume of practice as the canal can be used in 90-degree segments. CONCLUSIONS: Few angle surgery training models currently exist and none provide these necessary features. The model presented here aims to meet the growing demand for adequate training models required for technically advanced MIGS techniques.

Morning dosing of once-daily glaucoma medication is more convenient and may lead to greater adherence than evening dosing.

PURPOSE: To determine if adherence and convenience of once-daily glaucoma medication is greater in the morning or the evening. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized crossover treatment trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty patients newly diagnosed with glaucoma or ocular hypertension requiring intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction were started on travoprost eye drops and randomized to either morning or evening administration for 1 month. They were then crossed over to the opposite dosing schedule for the following month. Adherence was monitored using an automated dosing aid. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence was compared between morning versus evening dosing and first versus second month dosing. Demographic characteristics were obtained, treatment effect was measured, and patients completed a post-study questionnaire regarding the convenience of the 2 dosing regimens. RESULTS: Patient adherence overall was good (89.3%). There was no statistically significant difference (P=0.07) in adherence between morning dosing (90.9%) and evening dosing (87.3%). Adherence in the first month (91.7%) was superior to the second month (86.5%). There was no significant difference in IOP response between morning and evening dosing. Patients found morning dosing more convenient than evening dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Early adherence to treatment with a prostaglandin analogue is good, but patients prefer morning administration to evening administration. This may lead to greater adherence with morning administration, particularly among men. Adherence decreases from the first to second month after initiation of treatment. IOP response to this treatment is not significantly affected by morning versus evening administration.

Differences in generic drug prices between the US and Canada.

BACKGROUND: It has long been recognized that brand name prescription medications are more expensive in the US than in Canada. However, non-peer-reviewed reports contend that this is not the case for generic medications. OBJECTIVE: To compare prices for generic prescription medications in the US and Canada. METHODS: A telephone and internet survey of pharmacies was conducted for the top 19 dispensed generic medications available in both countries. Twelve pharmacies in total were selected: six from the US (three online and three 'walk-in') and six from Canada (three online and three walk-in). Data were collected from March to April 2007.The main outcome measure was the total purchase price in $US at the day's exchange rate in 2007, obtained from each of the 12 pharmacies, for 100 doses of each of the 19 selected drugs. RESULTS: Using the lowest quote for each selected drug, 12 of the 19 (63%) generic medications were least expensive in the US, with an average saving of 47% per drug for these 12 drugs. Seven of the 19 (37%) drugs were least expensive in Canada, with an average saving of 29% per drug for these seven drugs. Overall, there was a sizable variation in prices for the same generic medications within and between the US and Canada. CONCLUSIONS: The lowest priced generic medications were not consistently found in either the US or Canada. The price controls and ensuing savings applied in Canada to prescription patented medications do not fully extend to generic medications.