Factors associated with the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) for Urology and Nephrology Journals

Purpose: The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is an index used to compare a journal's quality among academic journals and it is commonly used as a proxy for journal quality. We sought to examine the JIF in order to elucidate the main predictors of the index while generating awareness among scientific community regarding need to modify the index calculation in the attempt to turn it more accurate. Materials and Methods: Under the Urology and Nephrology category in the Journal Citations Report Website, the top 17 Journals by JIF in 2011 were chosen for the study. All manuscripts’ abstracts published from 2009-2010 were reviewed; each article was categorized based on its research design (Retrospective, Review, etc). T and correlation tests were performed for categorical and continuous variables respectively. The JIF was the dependent variable. All variables were then included in a multivariate model. Results: 23,012 articles from seventeen journals were evaluated with a median of 1,048 (range=78-6,342) articles per journal. Journals with a society affiliation were associated with a higher JIF (p=0.05). Self-citations (rho=0.57, p=0.02), citations for citable articles (rho=0.73, p=0.001), citations to non-citable articles (rho=0.65, p=0.0046), and retrospective studies (rho=-0.51, p=0.03) showed a strong correlation. Slight modifications to include the non-citable articles in the denominator yield drastic changes in the JIF and the ranking of the journals. Conclusion: The JIF appears to be closely associated with the number of citable articles published. A change in the formula for calculating JIF to include all types of published articles in the denominator would result in a more accurate representation.

Complications rates of non-oncologic urologic procedures in population-based data: a comparison to published series

PUSPOSE: Published single institutional case series are often performed by one or more surgeons with considerable expertise in specific procedures. The reported incidence of complications in these series may not accurately reflect community-based practice. We sought to compare complication and mortality rates following urologic procedures derived from population-based data to those of published single-institutional case series. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In-hospital mortality and complications of common urologic procedures (percutaneous nephrostomy, ureteropelvic junction obstruction repair, ureteroneocystostomy, urethral repair, artificial urethral sphincter implantation, urethral suspension, transurethral resection of the prostate, and penile prosthesis implantation) reported in the U.S.’s National Inpatient Sample of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project were identified. Rates were then compared to those of published single-institution series using statistical analysis. RESULTS: For 7 of the 8 procedures examined, there was no significant difference in rates of complication or mortality between published studies and our population-based data. However, for percutaneous nephrostomy, two published single-center series had significantly lower mortality rates (p < 0.001). The overall rate of complications in the population-based data was higher than published single or select multi-institutional data for percutaneous nephrostomy performed for urinary obstruction (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: If one assumes that administrative data does not suffer from under reporting of complications then for some common urological procedures, complication rates between population-based data and published case series seem comparable. Endorsement of mandatory collection of clinical outcomes is likely the best way to appropriately counsel patients about the risks of these common urologic procedures.

Urovysion™ testing can lead to early identification of intravesical therapy failure in patients with high risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer

Purpose: In this study, we investigated the ability of UroVysion™ to assess response to intravesical therapy in patients with high risk superficial bladder tumors. Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing intravesical therapy for high risk superficial bladder tumors. Urine specimens were collected for UroVysion™ analysis before and immediately after a course of intravesical therapy. Cytology and cystoscopy were performed six weeks after treatment, using either a positive cytology or visible abnormality on cystoscopy as a prompt for biopsy. The operating characteristics of the UroVysion™ test were then determined. Results: 41 patients were identified in whom 47 cycles of induction and 41 cycles of maintenance intravesical therapy were given during the study period. This yielded a total of 88 treatment and evaluation cycles. Median follow-up was 9 months per induction (range 1-21 months) and 13 months per patient (range 1-25 months). A total of 133 urine samples were collected for UroVysion™ of which 40 were positive. Based upon standard clinical evaluation, 41 biopsies were performed which detected 20 recurrences. UroVysion™ testing performed immediately upon completion of therapy for the 41 patients undergoing biopsy yielded a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 85 percent, 61 percent, and 71 percent. Conclusions: The use of UroVysion™ following intravesical therapy for high-risk superficial bladder tumors helps to identify patients at high risk of refractory or recurrent disease who should undergo immediate biopsy under anesthesia.