Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often considered the gold standard and the cornerstone for clinical practice. However, bibliometric studies on worldwide RCTs of ophthalmology published in the 21st century have not been reported in detail yet. This study aims to perform a bibliometric study and visualization analysis of worldwide ophthalmologic RCTs in the 21st century. METHODS: Global ophthalmologic RCTs from 2000 to 2022 were searched in the Web of Science Core Collection. The number of publications, country/region, institution, author, journal, and research hotspots of RCTs were analyzed using HistCite, VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and Excel software. RESULTS: 2366 institutions and 90 journals from 83 countries/regions participated in the publication of 1769 global ophthalmologic RCTs, with the United States leading in the number of volumes and research field, and the Moorfields Eye Hospital contributing to the most publications. Ophthalmology received the greatest number of publications and co-citations. Jeffrey S. Heier owned the most publications and Jost B. Jonas owned the most co-citations. The knowledge foundations of global ophthalmologic RCTs were mainly retinopathy, glaucoma, dry eye disease (DED), and cataracts, and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy (ranibizumab), topical ocular hypotensive medication, laser trabeculoplasty. Anti-VEGF therapy for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), DME (diabetic macular edema), and DED, the use of new diagnostic tools, and myopia were the hottest research highlights. Anti-VEGF therapy, prompt laser, triamcinolone, and verteporfin photodynamic therapy for AMD, DME, and CNV (choroidal neovascularization), DED, myopia, and open-angle glaucoma were the research hotspots with the longest duration. The future research hotspots might be DED and the prevention and control of myopia. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the number of global ophthalmologic RCTs in the 21st century was keeping growing, there was an imbalance between the regions and institutions, and more efforts are required to raise the quantity, quality, and global impact of high-quality clinical evidence in developing countries/regions.