Who cites optometry journals?

Purpose: This work seeks to identify the most impactful journals, papers, authors, institutions, and countries that cite optometry journal articles. Methods: The Scopus database was searched for papers citing at least one article published in any of the 18 optometry journals included in that database (i.e. ‘optometry articles’). The 10 most highly cited papers that cite optometry journal articles were determined from 82,830 papers found. A h-index for “optometry journal citations” (the hOJC-index) was derived for each entity in the categories of journals, papers, authors, institutions and countries to serve as a measure of impact. Results: The hOJC-index of the body of papers citing optometry journal articles is 370. Papers citing optometry journal articles have themselves been cited 2,054,816 times. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science (hOJC = 154) is the most impactful journal citing optometry articles and Optometry and Vision Science the most prolific (5310 papers). The most impactful paper citing optometry journal articles (5725 citations) was published in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Ophthalmologist Seang Mei Saw (hOJC = 69) is the most impactful author and optometrist Nathan Efron is the most prolific (288 papers). Harvard University (hOJC = 127) is the most impactful and UNSW Sydney is the most prolific institution (1761 papers). The United States is the most impactful and prolific nation (hOJC = 313; 28,485 papers). Conclusions: Optometry journal articles are cited extensively by optometrists, ophthalmologists, and vision scientists world-wide, as well as authors from a broad spectrum of non-ophthalmic research domains. This work confirms the utility and influence of optometry journals. (AU)

Efficacy and safety of AZR-MD-001 selenium sulfide ophthalmic ointment in adults with meibomian gland dysfunction: A vehicle-controlled, randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is a chronic progressive disease with downstream effects on ocular signs and symptoms. AZR-MD-001 is a selenium sulfide ophthalmic ointment that was investigated as a potential treatment option for patients with MGD. METHODS: A Phase 2, multi-center, double-masked, parallel group study was conducted across 29 sites, with 245 patients randomized 1:1:1 to AZR-MD-001 0.5%, AZR-MD-001 1.0% or vehicle applied to the lower eyelid, twice weekly. Patients were eligible for the trial if they presented with signs and symptoms of MGD. Co-primary efficacy endpoints were the changes from baseline in number of open glands (Meibomian Glands Yielding Liquid Secretion [MGYLS] score) and patient-reported ocular surface symptoms (Ocular Surface Disease Index [OSDI] total score) at Month 3. Efficacy outcomes were captured at Day 14, Month 1.5 and Month 3. Safety and tolerability were assessed for treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: AZR-MD-001 0.5% (n = 82 patients) treatment resulted in significant improvements in MGYLS score, with patients experiencing an average increase from baseline of 4.2 and 2.4 open glands secreting meibum for the drug and vehicle, respectively (p < 0.001) and from baseline a mean OSDI total score improvement of 7.3 and 3.8 for the drug and vehicle, respectively (p < 0.05). Most TEAEs were mild and transient, with 3 serious adverse events (SAEs) reported with AZR-MD-001 (none related to study drug). CONCLUSIONS: Co-primary endpoints were met for AZR-MD-001 0.5% at Month 3, with a statistically significant improvement in the signs and symptoms of MGD. AZR-MD-001 was safe and well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03652051, ANZCTR Registration Number: AZ201801.

Bibliometric Analysis of Ophthalmic Journals.

Importance: The primary vehicle for reporting and testing advances in eye care is refereed ophthalmic journals, which can be characterized using targeted bibliometric analyses. Objective: To identify all ophthalmic journals and evaluate citation metrics relating to articles, journals, authors, institutions, and countries published therein. Design and Setting: A bibliometric analysis was undertaken of all ophthalmic journals included in the Scopus database (Elsevier). The search was restricted to all article types published in ophthalmic journals in English from inception through November 18, 2022. After excluding general medical journals, journals published in a language other than English, and spurious titles unrelated to the ophthalmic field, the Scopus database was found to list 335 ophthalmic journal titles that have published 471 184 articles, constituting the data set for this analysis. The 20 most highly cited articles were identified. Rank-order lists by article count were assembled for journals, authors, institutions, and countries. Main Outcomes and Measures: An h-index for ophthalmic journal articles was derived from citations and article counts for each constituent of each category. Results: The h-index for ophthalmic journal articles was determined to be 494. The journal with the highest h-index was Ophthalmology (h-index, 297). The journal with the greatest number of articles was American Journal of Ophthalmology (38 441 articles). The most highly cited article was by Quigley and Broman, 2006 (5147 citations), concerning the epidemiology of glaucoma. The author with the highest h-index for ophthalmic journal articles was Ronald Klein, MD (h-index, 126), and the most prolific was Carol L. Shields, MD (1400 articles). Johns Hopkins University (h-index, 215) was the institution with the highest h-index for ophthalmic journal articles, and Harvard University was the most prolific (10 071 articles). The United States was the nation with the highest h-index for ophthalmic journal articles (h-index, 444) and was the most prolific (180 017 articles). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the most highly cited articles published in ophthalmic journals were revealed, as well as the leading journals, authors, institutions, and countries. While excluding ophthalmology articles in general medical journals, this investigation affords a means of identifying highly cited authors, institutions, and countries which individuals or institutions can use as a guide regarding contributions to the field.

Who cites optometry journals?

PURPOSE: This work seeks to identify the most impactful journals, papers, authors, institutions, and countries that cite optometry journal articles. METHODS: The Scopus database was searched for papers citing at least one article published in any of the 18 optometry journals included in that database (i.e. 'optometry articles'). The 10 most highly cited papers that cite optometry journal articles were determined from 82,830 papers found. A h-index for "optometry journal citations" (the hOJC-index) was derived for each entity in the categories of journals, papers, authors, institutions and countries to serve as a measure of impact. RESULTS: The hOJC-index of the body of papers citing optometry journal articles is 370. Papers citing optometry journal articles have themselves been cited 2,054,816 times. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science (hOJC = 154) is the most impactful journal citing optometry articles and Optometry and Vision Science the most prolific (5310 papers). The most impactful paper citing optometry journal articles (5725 citations) was published in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Ophthalmologist Seang Mei Saw (hOJC = 69) is the most impactful author and optometrist Nathan Efron is the most prolific (288 papers). Harvard University (hOJC = 127) is the most impactful and UNSW Sydney is the most prolific institution (1761 papers). The United States is the most impactful and prolific nation (hOJC = 313; 28,485 papers). CONCLUSIONS: Optometry journal articles are cited extensively by optometrists, ophthalmologists, and vision scientists world-wide, as well as authors from a broad spectrum of non-ophthalmic research domains. This work confirms the utility and influence of optometry journals.

In vitro assessment of the biocompatibility of chemically treated silicone materials with human lens epithelial cells.

Cytotoxicity testing is a regulatory requirement for safety testing of new ocular implants. In vitro toxicity tests determine whether toxic chemicals are present on a material surface or leach out of the material matrix. A method of evaluating the cytotoxicity of ocular implants was developed using fluorescent viability dyes. To assess the assay's sensitivity in detecting toxic substances on biomaterials, zinc diethydithiocarbamate (ZDEC) and benzalkonium chloride (BAK) were deposited on silicone surfaces at different concentrations. Human lens epithelial cells (HLEC) were added to the surface of these treated silicone surfaces and were assessed for viability. The viability of both the adherent and non-adherent cells was determined using confocal microscopy with, annexin V, ethidium homodimer, and calcein. Cell metabolism was also evaluated using resazurin and the release of inflammatory cytokines was quantified using a multiplex Mesoscale Discovery platform. Confocal microscopy was shown to be a sensitive assay for evaluating material toxicity, as significant toxicity (p < 0.05) from ZDEC and BAK-treated surfaces compared to the untreated silicone control was detected. Patterns of cytokine release from cells varied depending on the toxin evaluated and the toxin concentration and did not directly correlate with the reduction in cell metabolic activity measured by alamarBlue.

Bibliometric analysis of the literature relating to silicone hydrogel and daily disposable contact lenses

Purpose: Publication metrics are derived for the fields of silicone hydrogel (SH) and daily disposable (DD) contact lenses.Methods: A search of the Scopus database for papers in the fields of SH and DD contact lenses found 979 SH and 291 DD papers. Subject-specific h-indices for SH lenses (hSH-index) and DD lenses (hDD-index) were derived, in relation to five categories – authors, institutions, countries and journals – to serve as measures of impact. A short list of the most impactful entities was generated for each of the above five categories in the SH and DD fields.Results: A paper entitled “Soft contact lens polymers: An evolution” by Nicholson and Vogt was the most highly cited article (495 citations) in both SH and DD fields. The most impactful entities for the SH and DD fields were: authors – Lyndon Jones (hSH = 33) and Philip Morgan (hDD = 15); institutions – the University of Waterloo (hSH = 37) and the University of New South Wales (hDD = 15); countries – the United States (hSH = 45) and the United Kingdom (hDD = 24); and journals – Optometry and Vision Science (hSH = 33) and Contact Lens and Anterior Eye (hDD = 17). Overall, the SH field (hSH = 64) is far more impactful than the DD field (hDD = 34).Conclusions: Impactful papers, authors, institutions, countries and journals in the SH and DD fields are identified. Optometry is revealed as the leading profession in relation to SH and DD publications. (AU)

Effect of a Novel Omega-3 and Omega-6 Fatty Acid Supplement on Dry Eye Disease: A 3-month Randomized Controlled Trial.

SIGNIFICANCE: Supplementing diet with a novel combination of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids significantly improved symptoms in extremely symptomatic participants with dry eye disease (DED). PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the effect of daily intake of a novel combination of essential fatty acids on signs and symptoms of DED. METHODS: Participants with moderate to severe DED were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, double-masked parallel group study. Participants ingested either the treatment supplement containing omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids (1200 mg eicosapentaenoic acid, 300 mg docosahexaenoic acid, 150 mg γ-linoleic acid) or the placebo (coconut and olive oil) daily for 3 months. To determine compliance, Omega-3 Index blood tests were conducted. At baseline and at 1 and 3 months, the following assessments were conducted: Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire and Symptom Assessment Questionnaire in Dry Eye, noninvasive tear breakup time, tear meniscus height, tear osmolarity, ocular redness, surface staining, Schirmer test, and meibography. RESULTS: Fifty participants (mean ± standard deviation baseline OSDI score, 52.2 ± 16.5) completed the study: 24 randomized to treatment and 26 randomized to placebo. Although there was an improvement in OSDI score at 3 months for both groups (treatment: -13.4 points, P = .003; placebo: -7.8 points, P = .02), participants with baseline OSDI scores >52 demonstrated an even larger significant improvement in symptoms with the treatment at 3 months compared with baseline (n = 13, -20.8 points, P = .002). There were no significant changes in any of the ocular assessments at 1 or 3 months (all P > .05). After 3 months, Omega-3 Index increased by 34% in the treatment group (baseline, 5.3 ± 0.8; 3 months, 8.0 ± 2.1; P < .001) and did not change in the placebo group (baseline, 4.8 ± 0.8; 3 months, 4.8 ± 0.6; P = .95). CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation with eicosapentaenoic acid, docosahexaenoic acid, and γ-linoleic acid resulted in a significant and clinically meaningful improvement of dry eye symptoms in extremely symptomatic participants with DED (OSDI ≥52).

Global optometrist research ranking derived from a science-wide author database of standardised citation indicators.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Publications in refereed scientific journals provide a rigorous research base that underpins clinical optometric practice. Leading optometrists who generate this literature can be identified and ranked using standardised citation indicators. BACKGROUND: This work seeks to identify and rank all optometrists included in a Science-Wide author database of standardised citation indicators (S-W) and to compare this ranking with the Global Optometrist Top 200 Research Ranking (T200). METHODS: A search was conducted for the names of all optometrists in the T200 who were included in the S-W, which is a world-wide listing of the top 2% of scientists in each of 174 subfield disciplines, ranked according to a composite citation indicator (cns) that excludes self-citations and corrects for multiple authorships and author order. RESULTS: The names of 66 optometrists are found in the S-W. Of these, 58 are designated as working in the primary sub-field 'Ophthalmology & Optometry'; this listing, in rank-order of cns, is referred to as the 'S-W-derived Optometrist Research Ranking' (S-WORR). Australian optometrist Nathan Efron is ranked #1 in the S-WORR. The number (%) of optometrists in the S-WORR from each country is: the United States - 26 (45%), Australia - 12 (21%), the United Kingdom - 11 (19%), Canada - 5 (9%), Spain - 2 (3%), Hong Kong - 1 (2%) and South Africa - 1 (2%). The universities housing the equal highest number of optometrists in the S-WORR (five each) are the University of California, Berkeley, USA; the University of New South Wales, Australia; and Queensland University of Technology, Australia. There is a moderately strong correlation between T200 and S-WORR rankings (ρ = 0.6017, N = 58, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The S-WORR represents an elite cohort of optometrists who ought to be celebrated for their outstanding, leading and impactful contributions to optometric research.

Bibliometric analysis of the literature relating to silicone hydrogel and daily disposable contact lenses.

PURPOSE: Publication metrics are derived for the fields of silicone hydrogel (SH) and daily disposable (DD) contact lenses. METHODS: A search of the Scopus database for papers in the fields of SH and DD contact lenses found 979 SH and 291 DD papers. Subject-specific h-indices for SH lenses (hSH-index) and DD lenses (hDD-index) were derived, in relation to five categories - authors, institutions, countries and journals - to serve as measures of impact. A short list of the most impactful entities was generated for each of the above five categories in the SH and DD fields. RESULTS: A paper entitled "Soft contact lens polymers: An evolution" by Nicholson and Vogt was the most highly cited article (495 citations) in both SH and DD fields. The most impactful entities for the SH and DD fields were: authors - Lyndon Jones (hSH = 33) and Philip Morgan (hDD = 15); institutions - the University of Waterloo (hSH = 37) and the University of New South Wales (hDD = 15); countries - the United States (hSH = 45) and the United Kingdom (hDD = 24); and journals - Optometry and Vision Science (hSH = 33) and Contact Lens and Anterior Eye (hDD = 17). Overall, the SH field (hSH = 64) is far more impactful than the DD field (hDD = 34). CONCLUSIONS: Impactful papers, authors, institutions, countries and journals in the SH and DD fields are identified. Optometry is revealed as the leading profession in relation to SH and DD publications.

All soft contact lenses are not created equal.

Soft contact lenses that have been prescribed by eye care practitioners are sometimes substituted for alternative lenses by unqualified, unregulated and sometimes even fully regulated lens suppliers, in the mistaken belief that there is essentially no difference between different soft lens types. This review considers the implications of inappropriately substituting soft contact lens types in terms of (a) lens properties: surface treatment, internal wetting agents, material, total diameter, back optic zone radius, thickness, edge profile, back surface design, optical design, power, colour (tint) and ultraviolet protection; and (b) lens usage: wearing modality (daily versus overnight wear) and replacement frequency. Potential aspects of patient dissatisfaction and adverse events when prescribed soft lenses are substituted for lenses with different properties or intended usage are considered. Substitution of 15 of the 16 lens properties considered (i.e. except for back surface design) was found to be related to at least one - and as many as six - potential sources of patient dissatisfaction and adverse ocular events. Contact lens are medical devices which are prescribed and fitted; they should never be substituted for another lens type in the absence of a new prescription further to a full finalised fitting, for the simple reason that all soft contact lenses are not created equal. A substituted lens may have properties that results in undesirable consequences in respect of vision, ocular health, comfort and cosmetic appearance, and may be incompatible with the lifestyle of the patient.

Bibliometric analysis of the keratoconus literature.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians, researchers funding agencies and indeed the general public can benefit from knowledge of the most highly cited papers and most impactful authors, institutions, countries and journals in the field of keratoconus. BACKGROUND: Bibliometrics relating to the keratoconus literature were derived to enable identification of the most impactful papers published, as well as the leading authors, institutions, countries and journals. METHODS: A search was undertaken of the titles of papers on the Scopus database to identify keratoconus-related articles. The 20 most highly cited papers were determined from the total list of 4,419 papers found. Rank-order lists by count were assembled for the 'top 20' in each of four categories: authors, institutions, countries and journals. A subject-specific keratoconus-related h-index (hKC-index) was derived for each constituent of each category to serve as a measure of impact in the field. The top 10 constituents of each category were ranked by hKC-index and tabulated for consideration. RESULTS: The hKC-index of the keratoconus field is 125. The 4,419 papers have been cited a total of 98,010 times, and 18.5% of these papers have never been cited. The most highly cited paper is a general review of keratoconus by Yaron Rabinowitz, who is also the most impactful author in the field (hKC = 31). The Cedars Sinai Medical Center in the United States produces the most impactful keratoconus-related papers (hKC = 36), and the United States is the most impactful country (hKC = 91). The Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery is the most impactful journal (hKC = 55). CONCLUSION: Keratoconus is a topic of high interest in the clinical and scientific literature. Highly cited papers and impactful authors, institutions, countries and journals are identified.

Topical Review: Bibliometric Analysis of the Emerging Field of Myopia Management.

SIGNIFICANCE: Identification of the most impactful articles, authors, institutions, countries, and journals in myopia management provides a useful baseline reference for clinicians, researchers, and funding agencies in respect of this emerging field.This work aims to assemble publication metrics for myopia management to identify the most impactful articles, authors, institutions, countries, and journals in this emerging field of research. A search of the titles of articles was undertaken on the Scopus database to identify myopia management-related articles. The 25 most highly cited articles were determined from the total list of 1064 articles found. Rank-order lists by count were assembled for the top 25 in each of four categories: authors, institutions, countries, and journals. A subject-specific myopia management-related h-index (hMM-index) was derived for the entire field, in addition to each of the four categories, to serve as measures of impact in the field. Top 15 lists were generated for each category ranked by hMM-index and tabulated for consideration. An article by Christine Wildsoet and colleagues, describing choroidal and scleral mechanisms of compensation for spectacle lenses in chicks, has generated the most citations (412); Earl Smith is the most impactful author (hMM = 19); the University of Houston produces the most impactful articles (hMM = 31); the United States is the most highly ranked country (hMM = 60); and Optometry and Vision Science is the most impactful journal. Although still in its infancy, myopia management is a topic of emerging interest in the clinical and scientific ophthalmic literature. Impactful authors, institutions, countries, and journals are identified. Optometry is revealed as the leading profession in relation to the publication of myopia management-related articles.

On the art and science of rigid contact lens fitting.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Examination of the literature can help answer the age-old question of the extent to which rigid contact lenses can be considered an art versus a science. BACKGROUND: This work aims to assemble rigid contact lens-related publication metrics to identify the most impactful papers, authors, institutions, countries and journals. METHODS: A search was undertaken of the Scopus database to identify rigid contact lens-related articles published since this lens type was first described in 1949. The 25 most highly cited papers were determined from the total list of 1,823 papers found. Rank-order lists by count were assembled for the 'top 25' in each of four categories: authors, institutions, countries and journals. A subject-specific rigid contact lens h-index (hRL-index) was derived for each author, institution, country and journal to serve as a measure of impact in the field. A short list of the top constituents in each category were ranked by hRL-index and tabulated. RESULTS: The most highly cited paper (467 citations) is entitled 'Risk factors and prognosis for corneal ectasia after LASIK', by Randleman et al. Karla Zadnik (hRL = 20; 32 papers) and Richard Hill (h = 10; 50 papers) are most impactful and prolific authors, respectively. The Ohio State University (hRL = 24; 96 papers) is the most impactful and prolific institution and the United States (hRL = 51; 680 papers) is the most impactful and prolific country. Optometry and Vision Science (hRL = 30; 233 papers) is the most impactful journal. CONCLUSIONS: Impactful authors, institutions, countries and journals in the field of rigid lenses are identified. Although there is perhaps an artistic element to rigid contact lens fitting, the solid literature base underpinning the field of rigid contact lenses revealed here belies the notion that rigid lenses fitting is more of an art than a science.

The Impact of Incubation Conditions on In Vitro Phosphatidylcholine Deposition on Contact Lens Materials.

SIGNIFICANCE: Previous in vitro measurements of contact lenses commonly investigate the impact of nonpolar tear film lipids (i.e., sterols). Polar lipids, however, are equally important stabilizing components of the tear film. This research explores and presents further knowledge about various aspects of polar lipid uptake that may impact contact lens performance. PURPOSE: This study evaluated the impact of incubation time, lipid concentration, and replenishment of an artificial tear solution (ATS) on the uptake of phosphatidylcholine (PC) onto conventional hydrogel (CH) and silicone hydrogel (SH) contact lens materials. METHODS: Four SHs and two CH lens materials (n = 4) were soaked in a complex ATS containing radioactive 14C-PC as a probe molecule. Phosphatidylcholine uptake was monitored at various incubation time points (1, 3, 7, 14, and 28 days), with different ATS lipid concentrations (0.5×, 1×, 2×) and with and without regular replenishment of the ATS. Phosphatidylcholine was extracted from the lenses, processed, and counted by a ß counter, and accumulated PC (µg/lens) was extrapolated from standard lipid calibration curves. RESULTS: All materials exhibited increasing PC deposition over time. Conventional hydrogel materials showed significantly lower PC uptake rates (P < .001) than any of the SH materials. Increasing lipid concentration in the ATS resulted in increased PC binding onto the contact lens materials (P < .001). Replenishing the ATS every other day, however, impacted the PC deposition differently, showing increased binding (P < .001) on CHs and reduced PC deposition for SH materials (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Length of incubation, lipid concentration in the ATS, and renewal of the incubation solution all influenced the amount of PC that sorbed onto various lens materials and therefore need to be considered when conducting future in vitro deposition studies.

21st century citation analysis of the field of contact lenses.

Clinical relevance: The scientific foundations for clinical contact lens practice are rooted in the ophthalmic literature. This analysis of contact lens papers celebrates contemporary research achievements in the contact lens field.Background: This work aims to assemble contact lens-related publication metrics so as to identify the most impactful papers published so far this century, as well the top countries, authors, institutions and journals.Methods: A search was undertaken of the titles of papers on the Scopus database to identify contact lens-related articles published this century. The ten most highly cited papers were determined from the total list of 4,164 papers found. Rank-order lists by count were assembled for the 'top 25' in each of four categories: authors, institutions, countries and journals. A 20-year subject-specific contact lens h-index (hCL-20-index) was derived for each author, institution, country and journal to serve as a measure of impact in the field. The top 10 constituents (of the top 25) of each category were ranked by hCL-20-index and tabulated for consideration.Results: The most highly cited paper this century is entitled 'Soft contact lens polymers: An evolution', by Nicholson and Vogt. Lyndon Jones is the most impactful author, with a hCL-20-index of 32. The University of New South Wales (Australia) produces the most impactful contact lens-related papers, and the United States is the most highly-ranked country. Optometry and Vision Science is the most impactful journal in the contact lens field.Conclusions: Contact lens materials and lens-associated keratitis are topics of high interest in the contemporary contact lens literature, with an emerging interest in orthokeratology for myopia control and glucose monitoring. Impactful 21st century authors, institutions, countries and journals are identified. Optometry is revealed as the leading profession in relation to the publication of impactful contact lens-related papers.

Global optometrist top 200 research ranking.

Clinical relevance: Clinical optometric practice is underpinned by a rigorous research base, the primary evidence for which is publications in refereed scientific journals. Leading optometrists who publish this work should be identified and celebrated.Background: This work aims to derive publication metrics of the leading optometric researchers worldwide.Methods: An extensive global search was conducted to discover leading optometric researchers; 480 names were identified. A custom-designed bibliographic search tool was developed to interrogate the Scopus database (Elsevier) and extract publication metrics using the unique Scopus Author Identifier number for each optometrist. On 13 January 2021, the full list was reduced to 200 optometrists (the 'Top 200') ranked by h-index - the 'Global Optometrist Top 200 Research Ranking'. The output from the custom tool automatically updates every 24 hours and is available at www.optomrankings.com.Results: The Top 200 have h-indices ranging from 20 to 67 and have published between 28 and 440 papers. Sixty one (30.5%) are women. Konrad Pesudovs has the highest h-index (67) and citations (51,193). The most prolific author is Robert Hess (442 papers). David Piñero is publishing at the fastest rate (17.6 papers per year). The Top 200 work in 13 nations, of whom 172 (86.0%) work in four nations: USA - 76 (38.0%), Australia - 43 (21.5%), UK - 41 (20.5%) and Canada - 16 (8.0%). Of the 72 institutions represented, the University of California, Berkeley, USA is home to the most Top 200 optometrists (17) and has the highest combined h-index of Top 200 optometrists (132).Conclusions: The optometric profession is supported by a robust research base, prosecuted by a large international cohort of optometric researchers who publish extensively on a broad range of ophthalmic issues and whose work is highly cited. The 200 most impactful optometrists in the world are identified.