From the Editor: Oldies but Questionably Goodies

In the past year, we have had more than 50 requests for copies of articles not readily available online; of these, more than half predate Y2K. Some requests come from libraries and companies presumably seeking to complete their literature, but most are from individuals. The oldest article requested was published in 1990 and dealt with wound contracture. The most popular topics included skin tears, skin care, incontinence (catheters, fecal containment, and incontinence-related dermatitis), and barrier products. Our best-practice features from the early 2000s on wound bed preparation, diabetic foot ulcers, and pressure ulcers also still have their appeal. 

Although I am happy to oblige, I am somewhat surprised by what seems to be an inordinate number of requests for older articles. I have to ask: What does someone want with information that is a quarter century old? In scholarly circles, one typically is not allowed to use a publication >5 years old unless it is a report of an original research study. Similarly, guidelines posted at guideline.gov must be updated every 5 years; if not, they are removed/pulled. Our astute reviewers know this and always question why older references are cited. 

With this in mind and because I am concerned about proliferating potentially (given new research) outdated information, these requests compel me to troll our website for more recent articles on requested topics. I applaud the throroughness of the author(s) who I assume are encountering these articles after plugging relevant search terms into PubMed and other indices, and I am eager to assist them. But are they aware of the 5-year rule when conducting their studies? Many of our manuscripts describe literature search parameters with publication dates harkening back to 1995. Perhaps we need to remind authors how long ago that is.

Some requests for older articles, like random emails I receive (see Can You Help? on our website), come from patients  or persons caring for persons with ostomies, desperate for help. They probably have Googled their condition or problem and our journal/article came up. They probably don’t look at dates; they look at results. One-piece? Two-piece? Old piece? New piece? 

I’ve found few studies on the popularly researched topics that post-date 2005 or 2006, at least 10 years since publication, which partly explains why someone searching a particular topic is digging so deep into our archives: lack of more recent research. Top-level studies (translated: randomized controlled trials) in wound care seem to be less prolific these days. This may be a factor of fewer companies due to mergers, less funding, and a host of other distractions (eg, the impact of “affordable” care). But it is heartening to note nurse-conducted research is increasingly becoming more recognized and subsidized. The Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation, for example, makes a concerted effort to subsidize studies performed by nurses, particularly when they involve quality-of-life issues. Similarly, OWM has experienced an uptick in the number of ostomy-related manuscripts submitted; for years, articles on ostomy (despite it being the first letter in our name) were few and far between, sending persons looking for information into the proverbial Way Back Machine. It is good to see manuscript submissions once more proliferate — if not with regard to ostomy product advancements, then about the lifelong psychosocial issues ostomates around the world must handle. This is also excellent news for the nurse advocates of persons with ostomies.

Besides the importance of having our information proliferated, every OWM citation bolsters our impact factor, the measure that reflects the average number of citations of articles a journal has published since 1975. Journals look to increase this number because the higher the impact factor, the higher the perceived status of the journal and the more people who come looking for our articles. It also doesn’t hurt that advertisers appreciate our stature in the health care community, given decades of being widely indexed and an enviable impact factor.

Readers should note (as many already know) any articlethat has appeared in OWM is available free of charge online after you log in or by emailing me the author names(s) and year and month of publication if the article predates our web archive; I will scan and send the article from the print journal (we harken back to 1980 when we were Ostomy Management). Whether for bedside or research application, the articles in our archives remind us how far we’ve come and how far we need to go. Happy searching!

This article was not subject to the Ostomy Wound Management peer-review process.