Get access

Adherence to ICCS nomenclature guidelines in subsequent literature: A bibliometric study

Authors

  • Jasan Dannaway,

    1. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    2. Centre for Kidney Research, Sydney, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Heryanto Ng,

    1. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    2. Centre for Kidney Research, Sydney, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Aniruddh V Deshpande

    Corresponding author
    1. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    2. Centre for Kidney Research, Sydney, Australia
    3. Department of Urology, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia
    • Kids Research Institute, Level 2, Crn Hawkesbury Rd and Hainsworth St, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney NSW 2145, Australia; Centre for Kidney Research, Locked Bag 4001, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney NSW 2006, Australia.
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Conflict of interest: none.

  • Christopher Chapple led the peer-review process as the Associate Editor responsible for the paper.

Abstract

Aims

Since the publication of the 2006 International Children's Continence Society (ICCS) guidelines on terminologies for lower urinary tract dysfunction in children, little is known of their impact. In this study, we aim to quantify the adherence to the guidelines in the published literature, and to examine whether Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) in MEDLINE reflect the recommended “new” ICCS terminology.

Methods

Seven pairs of pre-specified paired terms (obsolete and recommended by the ICCS) were searched, limited to paediatric literature published between 2002 and 2010. Their use in the literature was compared between the pre-guideline (2002–2005) and post-guideline (2007–2010) period and across geographical regions. MeSH in MEDLINE were examined for the use of ICCS preferred terminology.

Results

Publications in paediatric urinary incontinence have shown a 49% increase from 2002–2005 to 2007–2010 (55–82 per year). There was about a fourfold increase in the likelihood of usage of ICCS recommended terminologies post ICCS guideline publication (OR: 4.19, 95% CI: 3.04–5.78, P < 0.001). Approximately 25% of the studies published between 2007 and 2010 used obsolete terminologies. Analysis indicated satisfactory uptake for most terms, with the exception of “urotherapy.” There was no significant geographical variation in uptake. More than half of the ICCS-recommended terms (4/7) did not appear in the current MeSH indexing tree and scope notes.

Conclusions

Overall uptake of recommended terms following release of ICCS terminology guidelines was encouraging although it remains suboptimal for certain terms. Efforts need to be made to improve the current MEDLINE indexing so that MeSH terms reflect terminology recommended by the ICCS. Neurourol. Urodynam. 32: 952–956, 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Get access to the full text of this article

Ancillary