Review
The BIOJ: a comparative review
Authors:
Jill Carlton ,
Health Economics and Decision Science (HEDS), School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield
About Jill
PhD MMedSci (Orthoptics) BMedSci (Orthoptics)
Gemma E. Arblaster,
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield;Academic Unit of Ophthalmology & Orthoptics, University of Sheffield, Sheffield
About Gemma E.
MSc, BMedSci (Hons) (Orthoptics)
Lindsey A. Hughes
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield
About Lindsey A.
BMedSci (Orthoptics)
Abstract
Aim: The aim of this descriptive study is to compare the types of articles published within the BIOJ with two other professional journals (Physiotherapy and Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics (OPO)).
Methods: Data were extracted using a standardized form, with two reviewers allocated to each journal. Each reviewer extracted data independently, and was blind to the other reviewer’s comments. Articles were categorised into study type; author affiliation to an academic unit; and whether any author was based in the United Kingdom or Ireland. Details of the study population and ethics approval statements were abstracted.
Results: It was hypothesised that Physiotherapy and OPO would contain more articles of a ‘higher’ level of evidence when compared to the BIOJ. This was not found. Although the BIOJ did not publish any Category A studies, the number of articles in the other study classification categories were similar. Over a third of articles published in BIOJ were narrative reviews, and the number of Category D studies published in the BIOJ appears to be increasing over time. However the number of articles per year is low and the figures must be interpreted with caution.
Conclusions: The content of the BIOJ does appear unbalanced, with a high number of review articles and case reports. Over the 5-year period investigated, these account for over 50% of the content of the BIOJ. It is hoped that this article will be a prompt for discussions on how research and dissemination can be achieved; and on the future and profile of the BIOJ itself.
How to Cite:
Carlton, J., Arblaster, G.E. and Hughes, L.A., 2013. The BIOJ: a comparative review. British and Irish Orthoptic Journal, 10, pp.3–10. DOI: http://doi.org/10.22599/bioj.65
Published on
01 Aug 2013.
Peer Reviewed
Downloads