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.

Prognostic Model for Predicting Survival in Patients with Disease Recurrence Following Radical Cystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Although the natural history of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB) from radical cystectomy (RC) to disease recurrence (DR) has been investigated intensively, the course of patients who have experienced DR after RC for UCB remains poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic value of the Bajorin criteria that consists of two risk factors: Karnofsky performance status (KPS) and the presence of visceral metastases (VMs) in patients with DR after RC for UCB. Furthermore, to identify additional factors associated with cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and thus build a multivariable model to predict survival after DR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified 967 patients with UCB who underwent RC at 17 centers between 1979 and 2012 and experienced DR. Of these, 372 patients had complete data we used for analysis. OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Univariable Cox regressions analysis was performed. We used a forward stepwise selection process for our final multivariable model. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Within a median follow-up of 18 mo, 266 patients died of disease. Cancer-specific survival at 1 yr was 79%, 76%, and 47% for patients with no (n=105), one (n=180), and two (n=87) risk factors (p<0.001; c-index: 0.604). On multivariable analyses, we found that KPS <80%, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score, anemia, leukocytosis, and shorter time to DR (all p values <0.034) were independently associated with increased CSM. The combination of time to DR and KPS resulted in improved discrimination (c-index: 0.694). CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed the prognostic value of KPS and VMs in patients with DR following RC for UCB. We also found several other clinical variables to be associated with worse CSM. We developed a model for predicting survival after DR inclusive of time to DR and KPS assessed at DR. If validated, this model could help clinical trial design. PATIENT SUMMARY: We developed a model to predict survival following disease recurrence after radical cystectomy for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, based on time to disease recurrence and Karnofsky performance status.

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.

Validating a claims-based method for assessing severe rectal and urinary adverse effects of radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To validate a claims-based algorithm for detecting severe rectal and urinary adverse effects (AEs) of radiotherapy (RT) to inform the design and interpretation of outcomes studies, using administrative datasets to detect such RT AEs. METHODS: An institutional billing analysis was performed to identify patients managed with RT for prostate or cervical cancer at the University of Minnesota, between 2000 and 2006. A priori, we identified Current Procedural Terminology procedural codes consistent with treatment for severe RT AEs. A retrospective chart review and a billing (ie "claims") analysis were performed to detect the procedures used to treat RT AEs. The accuracy of the claims-based algorithm was compared with chart review (the reference standard). RESULTS: On chart review, 31 patients (7.6%) with severe rectal and urinary RT AEs were detected among 406 patients with nonmetastatic cancer at diagnosis. The most common AE was ureteral stenosis (25% of all AEs). The sensitivity and specificity of the claims-based analysis were 75% and 100% respectively for urethral stricture, 100% and 99% respectively for ureteral stricture, 60% and 100% respectively for radiation cystitis, 88% and 100% respectively for rectal or urinary fistula, and 88% and 100% respectively for radiation proctitis. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated an excellent specificity and yet fairly good sensitivity of our claims-based algorithm for detecting treatment of urethral stricture, rectal or urinary fistulas, radiation proctitis, and ureteral stricture. These data might inform the design and interpretation of studies using claims-based methods for the detection of severe urinary AEs of pelvic RT.