Evaluating "payback" on biomedical research from papers cited in clinical guidelines: applied bibliometric study

Grant, Jonathan; Cottrell, Robert C.; Cluzeau, Françoise; Fawcett, Gail

doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7242.1107

Cited by 166 publications

(125 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

117

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the references were in much more clinical journals than world oncology papers for the year 2000, the peak year for the numbers of references, see Figure 2. This result was obtained earlier (Grant et al, 2000;Lewison and Wilcox-Jay, 2003) but with a much simplified (and less accurate) method of categorisation of journals by RL. Of the 3217 papers, 2747 titles (86%) had either a 'clinical' or a 'basic' keyword, and the mean RL was 1.07, which is very close to the lower end of the scale (RL ¼ 1.0), and much below the mean RL based on all the papers in the individual journals (RL ¼ 1.43).…”

Section: Time and Research Level Distributionssupporting

confidence: 61%

“…It does, therefore, seem worthwhile to treat them as an outcome indicator, even though a partial one, of the clinical impact of the research they cite. Several studies have analysed the evidence base of selected clinical guidelines (Grant, 1999;Grant et al, 2000;Lewison and Wilcox-Jay, 2003). They have established that the papers cited are very clinical (when positioned on a scale from clinical observation to basic research); that the UK guidelines overcite the UK research papers; and that the cited papers are quite recent, with a temporal distribution comparable to that of the papers cited on biomedical research papers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of cancer research: how publications influence UK cancer clinical guidelines

Lewison

Sullivan

2008

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been a substantially increased interest in biomedical research impact assessment over the past 5 years. This can be studied by a number of methods, but its influence on clinical guidelines must rank as one of the most important. In cancer, there are 43 UK guidelines (and associated Health Technology Assessments) published (up to October 2006) across three series, each of which has an evidence base in the form of references, many of which are papers in peer-reviewed journals. These have all been identified and analysed to determine their geographical provenance and type of research, in comparison with overall oncology research published in the peak years of guideline references (1999 -2001). The UK papers were cited nearly three times as frequently as would have been expected from their presence in world oncology research (6.5%). Within the United Kingdom, Edinburgh and Glasgow stood out for their unexpectedly high contributions to the guidelines' scientific base. The cited papers from the United Kingdom acknowledged much more explicit funding from all sectors than did the UK cancer research papers at the same research level.

show abstract

Section: Time and Research Level Distributionssupporting

confidence: 61%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of cancer research: how publications influence UK cancer clinical guidelines

Lewison

Sullivan

2008

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…National guidelines were significantly more likely to cite research from investigators from the same country, explaining some of the variation in citations between guidelines. Others have found that local sources of evidence are overrepresented in guidelines (27) and that the results of trials conducted in the same country may be given more prominence (28).…”

Section: Self-monitoring Of Blood Glucosementioning

confidence: 99%

Inside Guidelines

Burgers

Bailey²,

Klazinga³

et al. 2002

Diabetes Care

179

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE -To compare guidelines on diabetes from different countries in order to examine whether differences in recommendations could be explained by use of different research evidence.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -We analyzed 15 clinical guidelines on type 2 diabetes from 13 countries using qualitative methods to compare the recommendations and bibliometric methods to measure the extent of overlap in citations used by different guidelines. A further qualitative analysis of recommendations and cited evidence for two specific issues in diabetes care explored the apparent discrepancy between recommendations and evidence.RESULTS -The recommendations made in the guidelines were in agreement about the general management of type 2 diabetes, with some important differences in treatment details. There was little overlap in evidence cited by the guidelines, with 18% (185/1,033) of citations shared with any other guideline, and only 10 studies (1%) appearing in six or more guidelines. The measurable overlap in evidence between guidelines increases if multiple publications from the same study and the use of reviews are taken into account. Research originating from the U.S. predominated (40% of citations); however, nearly all (11/12) guidelines were significantly more likely to cite evidence originating from their own countries.CONCLUSIONS -Despite the variation in cited evidence and preferential citation of evidence from a guideline's country of origin, we found a high degree of international consensus in recommendations made for the clinical care of type 2 diabetes. The influence of professional bodies such as the American Diabetes Association may be an important factor in explaining international consensus. Globalization of recommended management of diabetes is not a simple consequence of the globalization of research evidence.

show abstract

“…4 Audits of citations in clinical practice guidelines also have merit. 24 We offer our survey instrument as a prototype tool, encouraging wider discussion in order to conceptualise better ways to describe and monitor outcomes from public health research.…”

Section: Improving Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes from NHMRC public health research project grants awarded in 1993

Ward

2001

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

4 However, compared with its investment in biomedical research, the NHMRC continues to spend relatively little on public health research. 5As a result of increasing demand for accountability, investigations using primarily bibliometric methods have been undertaken to quantify returns from investment in health and medical research. Bourke and Butler 6 first demonstrated that the six Australian biomedical block-funded institutes (BFIs) produce high-impact research. Ten of the 12 most cited Australian biomedical research articles are associated with BFIs. 6 In another study commissioned by the Health and Medical Research Strategic Review Committee, 7 Butler et al. demonstrated that 1.3% of Australia's health and medical research publications are among the world's 1% most cited while 6.8% are in the top 5% most cited. of Australian public health research is higher than the discipline's global average. 7 Yet, diverse factors influence whether research is published.9 Hence, indicators of research outcomes other than publications are needed, especially those demonstrating links between research activity and population health. 10 In 1999, we designed a novel audit to examine these issues by surveying recipients of project grants awarded by NHMRC through PHRDC in 1993. We selected 1993 because track record is conventionally considered in terms of publications over the previous six years. We also took the opportunity to ask recipients about sources of funding for public health research; barriers to research dissemination and views about potential strategies to encourage research uptake. MethodWe obtained a list from the NHMRC of PHRDC research project grants awarded for 1993. Fellowships and scholarships were excluded. We surveyed all chief investigators who had been awarded new project grants (n=32) and those receiving continuing project grants (n=31). In advance of questionnaire mail-out, SS telephoned all contactable investigators. Standardised follow-up of non-respondents was undertaken.We first asked recipients about the state of completion of their project and whether project results had been fully repor ted. Respondents then were asked to report how results had been disseminated. Reprints of articles or other outputs were requested. Upon receipt, publications were logged, also checking whether journals in which Improving Outcomes Article

show abstract

Evaluating "payback" on biomedical research from papers cited in clinical guidelines: applied bibliometric study

Cited by 166 publications

References 8 publications

The impact of cancer research: how publications influence UK cancer clinical guidelines

The impact of cancer research: how publications influence UK cancer clinical guidelines

Inside Guidelines

Outcomes from NHMRC public health research project grants awarded in 1993

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About