Tag Archive for: Prokar Dasgupta

You are here: / Prokar Dasgupta

Posts

Surgical Science – everything is not what it seems

/by

It has been another successful year for the BJUI. Our impact factor has gone up, the new design theme of ‘places’, featuring the location of the ‘Article of the Month’ on the front cover, has been well received and our web statistics have gone from strength to strength. Despite these successes, as a surgeon-scientist, I occasionally find that I am questioning myself, particularly where surgical science is concerned.

One such moment came recently while I was performing a live nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) during the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) 2014 meeting in Amsterdam. Open RC (ORC) is a morbid procedure and in cohort studies we thought that we had halved the complication rates with laparoscopy and lowered them even further with robotics. However, these results have not been replicated in randomised controlled trials. A letter in the NEJM comparing ORC and RARC showed no difference in outcomes, especially complication rates. Many feel that perhaps there was a difference in the experience of surgeons performing ORC and RARC, although the article itself mentions that this was not the case. Our own CORAL (randomised controlled trial of open, robotic and laparoscopic radical cystectomy) study comparing ORC, laparoscopic RC and RARC demonstrated no difference in 90-day complication rates, although all diversions were performed extracorporeally. In this issue of the BJUI, we present another randomised trial of ORC vs RARC showing no significant differences in health-related quality of life with scores returning to baseline after 3 months. We now await the results of the multicentre RAZOR (randomized open vs robotic cystectomy) study, which is expected to recruit fully this year. As I performed live, I could not help thinking about the negative results of these trials, which came up during my discussions with the audience. It is often good to question yourself rather than have blind faith without the scientific evidence.

Now for some positive news. It is becoming increasingly obvious that perhaps choline positron emission tomography (PET) will soon replace bone scans for detecting metastasis in prostate cancer. As tracer technology develops further, the death of traditional bone scanning in coming years seems imminent.

Finally, we have some exciting science for your reading pleasure. While the management of Peyronie’s disease has largely centred on various surgical techniques, there may be a new treatment for the plaque itself just over the horizon. The answer – ‘small hairpin RNA’; these can inhibit histone deacetylase 2 and induce plaque regression. Currently reported in a rat model, Phase I studies cannot be far away.

Read the article

Prokar Dasgupta 

King’s College London, Guy’s Hospital, London, UK

 

Guideline of Guidelines

/by

Many of us have developed an addiction to sports this summer. The World Cup football in Brazil with its continuous party spirit, the lush green lawns of Wimbledon and then the Test series between India and England. Our Web Editor could not contain himself:

Amidst all the fun and excitement, three important pieces of news are highlighted here:
  1. I requested our Associate Editor Stacy Loeb, who has a strong background in statistical methodology and health services research, to launch a series entitled ‘Guideline of Guidelines’. Most busy urologists tell me that they often find the many different society guidelines confusing. So we decided to publish a critical summary, finishing up with a set of ‘key points’ that our readers can use in their day-to-day practices. And what better way to kick off than with our biggest controversy – screening for prostate cancer [1].
  1. At #BAUS14 we conducted a live audience poll on when (and if) we should go completely digital. Here are the results:
  1. Inflammatory responses to tumours are recognised as being as important as stage and grade in predicting outcomes of treatment. Our ‘Article of the Month’ is a large 12-year European series of radical surgery for upper tract TCC. Neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio appears to be an important biomarker, as values of >2.7 confer worse cancer-specific and overall survivals [2]. The ratio of total neutrophils:total lymphocytes is easy to calculate from a routine preoperative blood test. I hope that many of you will be able to counsel your patients with this clinically useful biomarker.

Prokar Dasgupta
Editor-in-Chief, BJUI
Guy’s Hospital, King’s College London, London, UK

References

Research vibrations

/5 Comments/by

Here is a randomised trial from Denmark to uplift your mood this European summer. Penile vibratory stimulation may help with the recovery of erectile function after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy [1]. However, it does not hasten recovery of continence. Building on the European theme, we were discussing alternative ways of influencing research communities and colleagues during the European Association of Urology (EAU) meeting in Stockholm. One obvious rising star is ResearchGate (Fig. 1).

ResearchGate (https://www.researchgate.net/) is a social networking site for scientists and researchers that allows them to share papers, exchange questions and find collaborators. ResearchGate has won the digital innovation of the year award from Focus Magazine in 2014. An important accolade in a world increasingly influenced and greatly amplified by the web and social media.

For a generation of scientists using Facebook, Twitter and similar social networks, ResearchGate has become a familiar site to exchange data and knowledge related to research. Similar to the other social network sites people can post comments, form groups, have profile pages and can ‘like’, ‘endorse’ and ‘follow’ other members. One can use it as an online bibliography and can even deposit published papers on the site. Members can also share negative results or experiments that are difficult to publish in peer-reviewed journals.

There is also a project section where groups can work together on projects in a secure environment. Forget Skype meetings at the last minute!

ResearchGate also introduces a new way of measuring the impact of a certain researcher on a scientific community. The ResearchGate score (RG score) is a new bibliometric tool that combines traditional parameters, such as the impact factor, with the user’s activity on the site, like posting or answering questions or the number of people that follow them. Also, the RG score of the peers that follow you will have an impact on your own RG score: the more influential your followers are, the higher your personal RG score will get.

Just as the Klout score is measuring the influence that one has in social media, ResearchGate could become an alternative measure not only of the scientific importance of a certain researcher but also of his or her interactivity. It is a measure for ‘scientific social network reputation’.

At the moment the relationship between impact factor, citation index and the RG score is difficult to establish, as the algorithm that is used to calculate the RG score is not widely known. If ResearchGate wants to establish the RG score as a respected measurement tool, some transparency will be helpful in future.

Since ResearchGate was founded in 2008 by Dr Ijad Madisch, Dr Sören Hofmayer and computer scientist Horst Fickensher, >4 million members have joined and the numbers are steadily increasing. Several other exchange platforms exist on the internet, but ResearchGate is certainly the most widespread at the moment. We think it is here to stay and claim a role as one of the tools to measure one’s scientific reputation.

Dirk De Ridder† and Prokar Dasgupta*
†BJUI Associate Editor, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, and *Guy’s Hospital, KCL and Editor-in-Chief, BJUI

Reference

  1. Fode M, Borre M, Ohl DA, Lichtbach J, Sønksen J. Penile vibratory stimulation in the recovery of urinary continence and erectile function after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: a randomised, controlled trial. BJU Int 2014; 114: 111–7

 

Flying high as a kite

/1 Comment/by

Some of my happiest memories are from my childhood. Part of it was spent in Lucknow where my mother had her ancestral home. An important city in Northern India, Lucknow was the seat of the Nawabs who built many beautiful palaces. One of these has a labyrinth, which many have entered only to get lost within its many chambers. Another, the Chhota Imambara is pictured on the cover. Lucknow is also famous for its cuisine with street vendors selling tasty kebabs. Above all, I remember many hours perched on the roof top of our home in the old town, flying kites, with my family. The sky above became a riot of colours. Today there is even a touring company offering nostalgic kite flying holidays in this ancient city.

In May, our Article of the Month comes from the King George Medical University, Lucknow. In a prospective, longitudinal comparison over six years, of a large number of patients undergoing urinary diversion after radical cystectomy, the authors demonstrate better quality of life after orthotopic neobladder rather than ileal conduit formation [1]. The mean age of the patients was in the mid 50s, which is perhaps why a significant number underwent neobladder formation. This article and the accompanying editorial from Urs Studer [2] are must reads for anyone involved in the management of bladder cancer. In the UK many of our patients are generally older with multiple co-morbidities and end up having ileal conduits. For the younger patients it is perhaps time for a rethink?

We also feature an excellent multi-institutional collaboration reporting on PCNL outcomes in England from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database over a five year period. Mortality is rare after this procedure but 9% of patients have a readmission within 30 days [3]. While the HES like most other databases has its inherent limitations, the authors should be congratulated for analysing complex outcomes on nearly 6000 patients; in particular John Withington who is writing his thesis on the subject.

And finally – an invitation. If you are attending the AUA, we are again having a BAUS–BJUI–USANZ session on the afternoon of the 18 May. The faculty is international and the program even more exciting than it was last year. This is a further testament to the strong friendship that exists between our organisations and the AUA. The Coffey–Krane prize for the best paper published in the BJUI by a trainee, will be presented at the end of this session followed by the BJUI reception.

Many of you have loved our new design, layout and quality although this has led to a precipitous drop in our acceptance rate in favour of only the very best papers. Thank you for your support, which has given us the strength and resolve to fly high. The sky is the limit.

Prof. Prokar Dasgupta
Editor-in-Chief, BJUI
King’s College London, Guy’s Hospital#

References

  1. Singh V, Yadav R, Sinha RJ, Gupta DK. Prospective comparison of quality-of-life outcomes between ileal conduit urinary diversion and orthotopic neobladder reconstruction after radical cystectomy: a statistical model. BJU Int 2014; 113: 726–732
  2. Studer UE. Life is good with orthotopic bladder substitutes! BJU Int 2014; 113: 686–687
  3. Armitage JN, Withington J, van der Meulen J, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in England: practice and outcomes described in the Hospital Episode Statistics database. BJU Int 2014; 113: 777–782

 

A new treatment option for prostatitis/prostatodynia?

/9 Comments/by

The management of patients with chronic pelvic pain attributed to chronic prostatitis has long been rather unsatisfactory. Even prolonged treatment with an aminoquinolone, such as ciprofloxacin, and an anti-inflammatory agent, or, alternatively an alpha blocker, seldom results in rapid resolution of the symptoms, and is commonly completely ineffective.

We recently encountered a patient, effectively disabled by prostatodynia, unresponsive to standard treatment, who had been taking morphine to control the pain from 2001 – 2008. He was unable to tolerate non-steroidal anti-inflammatory analgesics. In 2008 he was prescribed initially 10 mgs, then 20 mgs daily, of the phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor tadalafil, with immediate marked improvement of his symptoms. On cessation of the medication on 4 separate occasions, his symptoms returned; recommencement of treatment each time, with 5 mgs tadalafil daily, has resulted in similar persisting improvement of his symptoms, and he has been able to discontinue treatment with morphine. As a direct consequence of the conversation with this individual we have prescribed tadalafil 5 mgs daily in several of our patients with prostatitis; so far with uniformly beneficial results. Of course, we should point out that this is an off-label indication for this medication.  

However, in addition to the symptom of pelvic pain, many men suffering from chronic abacterial prostatitis/prostatodynia also complain of associated lower urinary tract symptoms and ejaculatory discomfort. Consequently treatment with tadalafil at a dose of 5 mgs per day for a period of time would seem logical. It could be surmised that many of its beneficial effects might stem from an improvement of blood flow to pelvic organs as a consequence of its anti-inflammatory and vasodilatory activity, as well as a relaxant effect on smooth muscle, as has been previously suggested in the case of lower urinary tract symptoms by Karl-Eric Andersson and others.

Clearly the hypothesis that daily treatment with a PDE5 inhibitor might be beneficial in men suffering from the prevalent condition of chronic abacterial prostatitis/prostatodynia needs to be formally tested in the context of a randomized controlled trial. If the results of such a study were to prove positive the quality of life of very many sufferers of this disorder might be significantly improved. One might also speculate that it could provide a concomitant benefit to the partners of these often very unhappy men. 

Read the full BJUI article

Roger Kirby, The Prostate Centre
Culley Carson III, The University of North Carolina
Prokar Dasgupta, The Prostate Centre, Guy’s Hospital, King’s College London

 

Valentine’s Day PSA

/1 Comment/by

A few years ago Barrack Obama, the President of the USA, is supposed to have said on Valentine’s Day – “Gentlemen – do not forget!”

He was apparently speaking “from experience”. Not remembering that important day can have catastrophic consequences for many men. On that occasion, PSA stood for public service announcement.

The headline, however, could easily have been mistaken for Prostate Specific Antigen. One could argue whether the PSA test is as important to men as Valentine’s Day. Most men probably do not bother, especially if they are less than 40 years old. The PSA debate swings around like a sine wave. Despite the best possible randomised controlled trials for and against PSA screening, there seem to be no clear answers with deep divisions amongst men and their urologists.

This February, the BJUI adds to the PSA debate by publishing the Melbourne Consensus Statement [1]. It was an attempt to bring some sense to a thorny subject. When published as a blog on www.bjui.org, most of our readers liked it, but certainly not all. The usual heated debate was inevitable. Earlier last summer Bal Carter, one of our BJUI Executive Members, chaired the AUA panel that recommended shared decision making for asymptomatic men between 55–69 years as far as PSA screening was concerned. They carefully analysed over 300 studies to make these recommendations [2]. I congratulated Bal on this milestone on the very morning this made headline news. However, such was the controversy that he had to present the findings twice – one appearance on the AUA podium was just not enough.

In a well-informed man, over diagnosis is not necessarily a problem as long as it does not lead to over treatment. I find myself treating a number of men in their 40s with strong family histories of prostate cancer. It is very difficult to deny them a PSA test when they seek it. This discussion is likely to become redundant in years to come when better risk stratification with genomic tools and improved imaging will complement the PSA test, rather than relying on it alone. In the meantime I leave it to our knowledgeable readers to make up their own minds.

Not everyone is interested in the PSA test in the month of February. If you belong to this category, perhaps we could grab your attention with a multi-institutional collaborative study showing disease free and overall survival rates of over 90% following LESS partial nephrectomy, a challenging procedure, even for technically accomplished surgeons [3]. Khurshid Guru’s group also present data to show that urinary and bowel domains take about 6 months to recover after robotic cystectomy; sexual domains even longer [4].

I have no illusions that none of the above may be of the slightest importance to some readers. In which case you may wish to head to the best florist in town. Forget that at your peril …

Prokar Dasgupta, Editor in Chief, BJUI
Guy’s Hospital, King’s College London

 

References

  1. Murphy DG, Ahlering T, Catalona WJ et al. The Melbourne Consensus Statement on the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer. BJU Int 2014; 113: 186–188
  2. Carter HB. American Urological Association (AUA) Guideline on prostate cancer detection: process and rationale. BJU Int 2013;112: 543–547
  3. Springer C, Greco F, Autorino R et al. Analysis of oncological outcomes and renal function after laparoendoscopic single site partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional outcome analysis. BJU Int 2014; 113: 266–274
  4. Poch MA, Stegemann AP, Rehman S et al. Short-term patient reported health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). BJU Int 2014; 113: 260–265
 

Quality has no boundaries

/by

The new year has arrived bringing with it new expectations of success. It gives us the opportunity to reflect on 2013 and plan for the year ahead. We hope you enjoyed the new web journal www.bjui.org that we have introduced. It has certainly increased our full paper downloads each month which means that our readers do care. Thank you! Your loyalty makes the many hours of hard work – 24/7 – all worthwhile. We have an international team which allows someone, somewhere to be making constant improvements to the BJUI for your reading pleasure.

Many of our readers while congratulating us, commented that perhaps we had focussed on being of greater relevance to the younger generation. Imagine my surprise when at a recent Men’s Health meeting in London, my old chief came up to me for a discussion about the controversies of PSA testing following publication of the AUA guidelines [1] and a consensus statement from down under on blogs@BJUI [2]. He had read it all on the web much earlier than when these articles eventually make it to the print journal. Like him, many of our readers see and read an article or blog online but do not necessarily comment on it. As a new metric, we will start indicating the number of times an article is read in addition to the number of comments it receives.

At the BJUI we do not make New Years resolutions. It is much easier to act. During our editorial board meeting last October it became obvious that we were receiving high quality papers from all over the world. In this issue, we have the great pleasure of showcasing a superb article on circumcision from Uganda [3]. Men with or without HIV, which is highly prevalent in Africa, tend to heal well after circumcision. This does not appear to be affected by their CD4 counts. This is a large study, relevant to all urologists and I would urge you to read it and the accompanying editorial from Paul Hegarty [4].

This article also gave us the idea of highlighting the geographical location of the article of the month on the front cover. Another inspirational concept from Tet Yap our associate editor for design. More about that in coming editions.

Finally Maxine Sun is back with a SEER study showing that the extent of lymphadenectomy during radical nephrectomy in patients with nodal metastasis, does not affect survival. Like any database, missing entries may have confounded the results and it is critical from a scientific standpoint to understand the resultant bias [5]. For those wishing to learn health services research a good starting point is to read the Sun Blog on SEER at our web journal.

Here’s looking forward to interacting with you in 2014.

Prokar Dasgupta
Editor in Chief, BJUI

Guy’s Hospital, King’s Health Partners

References

  1. Ballentine Carter H. American Urological Association (AUA) Guideline on prostate cancer detection: process and rationale. BJU Int 2013; 112: 543–547
  2. Murphy D. The Melbourne Consensus Statement on Prostate Cancer Testing. blogs@BJUI. Available at: https://www.bjuinternational.com/bjui-blog/the-melbourne-consensus-statement-on-prostate-cancer-testing/. Accessed 20 November 2013
  3. Kigozi G, Musoke R, Kighoma N et al. Male circumcision wound healing in HIV-negative and HIV-positive men in Rakai, Uganda. BJU Int 2014; 113: 127–132
  4. Hegarty P. Circumcision – follow up or not? BJU Int 2014; 113: 2
  5. Sun M, Trinh Q-D, Bianchi M et al. Extent of lymphadenectomy does not improve the survival of patients with renal cell carcinoma and nodal metastases: biases associated with the handling of missing data. BJU Int 2014; 113: 36–42

Original publication of this editorial can be found at: BJU Int 2014; 113: 1. doi: 10.1111/bju.12575

Beyond our wildest dreams

/5 Comments/by

In this podcast Prokar Dasgupta summarises the success of the BJUI over 2013. For more on podcasts, including how to record your own, go to Podcasts Made Simple.

 

If anyone had suggested to me in January 2013 that our full article downloads would increase by 15% and the Melbourne Consensus Statement on PSA testing would be viewed over 5000 times @ BJUI.org, I would have stared at them in disbelief. The launch of our web portal in addition to an innovative paper journal, has achieved just that. And much more. We remain one of the Big Three in urology with a Klout score greater than any of our colleagues. These are impossible to achieve via papyrus alone.

The common theme amongst all the fantastic innovation that our Associate Editors have introduced is the highest quality of original articles that we have attracted and published this year. I wanted to take this opportunity to highlight them and thank all our authors for sending us their best manuscripts.

The updated Partin tables (2006–11) remains our most cited paper published in 2013 [1]. It is sheer coincidence that I selected it as our first article of the month in January. It has allowed surgeons to avoid lymphadenectomy during radical prostatectomy in non-palpable Gleason 3+4 disease as the risk of a positive lymph node is <2%. The accompanying 3 minute video on the BJUI Tube channel is an excellent summary for the busy urologist.

I had to appease a number of oncologists when Cooperberg and colleagues showed that radiation for prostate cancer was about 2.5 times more expensive than radical prostatectomy in a comprehensive lifetime cost-utility analysis [2]. Peace was rapidly established at the annual meeting of the British Uro-Oncology group (BUG) where I participated in a balloon debate on the subject this autumn.

The thematic variations continue. It seems that 12 weeks of Tadalafil is effective in ejaculatory and orgasmic dysfunction in patients with ED [3]. Sexual medicine remains an exciting section of the BJUI and I am grateful to the andrologists on our editorial board for diligently reviewing the large number of papers that we receive from investigators in this field.

And finally we had two practice changing randomised trials in stone disease. Plasma vaporisation performed better than balloon dilatation for creating PCNL tracts [4]. For the curious, there is a video demonstrating the method if you wish to learn it.

The Portland trial has a simple message that you just can’t ignore; a single dose of NSAID before ureteric stent removal prevents severe pain afterwards. This is going to become standard of care if it has not already [5].

Many of our readers will wonder why we continue with a paper journal when the web has been so successful? The map here shows our global reach, which includes a number of subscribers who prefer to, or by necessity, read the print journal (∼30%). Moreover in a BJUI Online Poll, 75% of our readers reported taking the paper journal out of its plastic sheath and reading it, with over 50% doing so within a week. The transition will thus take longer and while the web remains our main portal, the beautifully designed paper BJUI will still land on your doorstep.

Prokar Dasgupta
Editor in Chief, BJUI

Guy’s Hospital, King’s Health Partners

References

  1. Eifler JB, Feng Z, Lin BM et al. An updated prostate cancer staging nomogram (Partin tables) based on cases from 2006 to 2011. BJU Int 2013; 111: 22–29
  2. Cooperberg MR, Ramakrishna NR, Duff SB et al. Primary treatments for clinically localised prostate cancer: a comprehensive lifetime cost-utility analysis. BJU Int 2013; 111: 437–450
  3. Paduch DA, Bolyakov A, Polzer PK, Watts SD. Effects of 12 weeks of tadalafil treatment on ejaculatory and orgasmic dysfunction and sexual satisfaction in patients with mild to severe erectile dysfunction: integrated analysis of 17 placebo-controlled studies. BJU Int 2013; 111: 334–343
  4. Chiang PH, Su HH. Randomized and prospective trial comparing tract creation using plasma vaporization with balloon dilatation in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. BJU Int 2013; 112: 89–93
  5. Tadros NN, Bland L, Legg E, Olyaei A, Conlin MJ. A single dose of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prevents severe pain after ureteric stent removal: a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. BJU Int 2013; 111: 101–105
Original publication of this editorial can be found at: BJU Int 2013; 112: 1051–1052. doi: 10.1111/bju.12524

 

 

 

The impact of the BJUI and what influences it today: does impact factor matter?

/by

Over the last decade, urological researchers have been increasingly interested with, and driven by, the impact factor (IF) of the journal to which they are submitting. This bibliometric tool measures the way in which a journal receives citations of its articles over time. IF is calculated by dividing the number of current citations a journal receives for articles published in the two previous years, by the number of articles published in those same years.

Although IF represents a proxy for the popularity of a journal within its field, several academic and scientific organizations now use the IF to judge the value of a scientist or of a research team using it for national and international academic evaluations. This questionable policy has generated a vicious circle that has driven authors to prefer journals with higher IFs and, consequently, journal editorial boards (and publishers) to plan (soft or strong) strategies to increase this index. As a result a higher IF attracts the best articles in the field and increases the number of subscriptions to a journal. There are a number of potential biases influencing the IF values including self-citation, the number of articles published per year, and the type of articles accepted. We will explain how all of these nuances can play a significant role in calculating the IF.

Some journals subtly suggest that authors and reviewers cite articles published in their own journal within the references of newly submitted papers. This slightly dubious practice can bias the true value of the IF. Reassuringly when looking at the urological journals, the self-citation factor generally seems to play a limited role, as most journals have a percentage <10%. The policy of the BJUI Editorial Board does not support a self-citation practice. The decision to start each BJUI issue with some editorial comments (the Editor’s Choice section) is only to offer to readers the opportunity to have expert comment on the most important papers published within each edition. Indeed, the invited authors are only requested to cite the featured article and no others from the BJUI.

The number of papers published per journal volume and throughout each year is another significant factor influencing the IF value. Table 1 clearly shows the wide variability in the number of papers published from 2010–2011 in the different urologic journals. The new BJUI policy is to significantly reduce the number of published papers/year. Reflecting this decision, the BJUI Editorial Board has agreed to significantly improve the review process with the aim of selecting only the most relevant and original of the submitted manuscripts. A new rapid triage review process should allow us to select only the best 30–40% of submitted manuscripts to send to 3–4 experts for a more focused and precise review process. This mechanism has produced a significantly increased rejection rate in favour, we hope, of a better selection of topics and papers for our readership [2].

Table 1. Items cited in 2012 and items published in 2010–2011 in the most important urological journals. Data from ISI Web of Journal Citation Reports (JCR)
Abbreviated Journal Title Cites in 2012 Items published in 2010–2011 Impact Factor
EUR UROL 4.662 445 10.476
NAT REV UROL 580 121 4.793
PROSTATE 1.395 963 3.843
J UROLOGY 4.864 1316 3.696
J SEX MED 2.638 751 3.513
BJU INT 3.323 1091 3.046
WORLD J UROL 673 233 2.888
UROLOGY 2.843 1173 2.424
CURR OPIN UROL 360 164 2.195

 

Bibliometric analyses have shown that review articles are cited more frequently than full original research papers. Therefore publishing good quality review articles written by expert opinion leaders in the field represents an excellent strategy to increase a journal’s IF. Although, we recognize the impact of review articles on IF, the current policy of the BJUI remains unchanged with only relatively few review articles included in each issue. As a result we will continue to give maximal attention to the clinical and basic research papers.

Finally the IF is in many ways only an index of the popularity of a journal because it equally weights citations from highly reputed journals alongside citations from more obscure journals [1]. However a journal’s true credit is also based on the prestige of the citing journals and the Eigenfactor scores is currently used to reflect this measure. Table 2 shows that the BJUI is third of all urological journals according to this less popular bibliometric tool. Another contemporary measure of impact, particularly influenced through the internet is the “Klout Score”. This system, which uses social media analytics to rank users according to online social influence via the Klout Score, giving a numerical value between 1 and 100. The BJUI currently has a score of 56, higher than its contemporaries. Therefore we can conclude that the BJUI today is a journal with a good reputation throughout the urologic field.

Table 2. Relationship between prestige (Eigenfactor® Score) and popularity (Impact Factor score) of urological journals. Data from ISI Web of Journal Citation Reports (JCR)
Rank Abbreviated Journal Title Eigenfactor® Score Impact Factor IF rank
 1 J UROLOGY 0.08109 3.696 4
 2 EUR UROL 0.05503 10.476 1
 3 BJU INT 0.04248 3.046 7
 4 UROLOGY 0.03896 2.424 11
 5 J SEX MED 0.01738 3.513 6
 6 PROSTATE 0.01624 3.843 3
 7 J ENDOUROL 0.01571 2.074 15
 8 NEUROUROL URODYNAM 0.00897 2.674 10
 9 WORLD J UROL 0.00750 2.888 8
10 INT J UROL 0.00582 1.734 16

 

The editorial board of a traditional urological journal like the BJUI must take into consideration both the IF and other scoring systems as indicators of its popularity and prestige. The strategies we employ to give better bibliometric parameters should predominantly reflect an increase in the quality of the papers published as we must remember that the journal is primarily produced for the readership and not just for those who wish to publish in it [3].

Vincenzo Ficarra1, Associate Editor,
Ben Challacombe2, Associate Editor,
Prokar Dasgupta2, Editor in Chief

1Department of Experimental and Clinical Medical Sciences, Urology Unit, University of Udine, Italy. 2King’s Health Partners, London UK

References

  1. Franceschet M. The difference between popularity and prestige in the sciences and in the social sciences: a bibliometric analysis. J Informetr 2010; 4: 55–61
  2. Dasgupta P. The most read surgical journal on the web. BJU Int 2013; 111: 1–3
  3. Schulman CC. What you have always wanted to know about the impact factor and did not dare to ask. Eur Urol 2005; 48: 179–181

Original publication of this editorial can be found at: BJU Int 2013; 112: 873–874, doi: 10.1111/bju.12472

© 2024 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.