How Biomedical Research Can Inform Both Clinicians and the General Public

Pallari, Elena; Lewison, Grant

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_22

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research needs to make more specific and more substantial contributions to the health and wellbeing of people, especially during outbreaks. As Pallari and Lewison (2019) wrote, biomedical research could influence its two main goals: better patient Fig. 15 International collaboration pattern of COVID-19 research treatment and prevention of illness, by studying the research base of clinical practice guidelines linked to patient treatment, and stories in the mass media as an expression of healthcare policy.…”

Section: Preliminary Analysis: Covid-19mentioning

confidence: 99%

How scientific research reacts to international public health emergencies: a global analysis of response patterns

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As of the middle of April 2020, the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic has claimed more than 137,000 lives (https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html). Because of its extremely fast spreading, the attention of the global scientific community is now focusing on slowing down, containing and finally stopping the spread of this disease. This requires the concerted action of researchers and practitioners of many related fields, raising, as always in such situations the question, of what kind of research has to be conducted, what are the priorities, how has research to be coordinated and who needs to be involved. In other words, what are the characteristics of the response of the global research community on the challenge? In the present paper, we attempt to characterise, quantify and measure the response of academia to international public health emergencies in a comparative bibliometric study of multiple outbreaks. In addition, we provide a preliminary review of the global research effort regarding the defeat of the COVID-19 pandemic. From our analysis of six infectious disease outbreaks since 2000, including COVID-19, we find that academia always responded quickly to public health emergencies with a sharp increase in the number of publications immediately following the declaration of an outbreak by the WHO. In general, countries/regions place emphasis on epidemics in their own region, but Europe and North America are also concerned with outbreaks in other, developed and less developed areas through conducting intensive collaborative research with the core countries/regions of the outbreak, such as in the case of Ebola in Africa. Researches in the fields of virology, infectious diseases and immunology are the most active, and we identified two characteristic patterns in global science distinguishing research in Europe and America that is more focused on public health from that conducted in China and Japan with more emphasis on biomedical research and clinical pharmacy, respectively. Universities contribute slightly less than half to the global research output, and the vast majority of research funding originates from the public sector. Our findings on how academia responds to emergencies could be beneficial to decision-makers in research and health policy in creating and adjusting anti-epidemic/-pandemic strategies.

show abstract

Section: Preliminary Analysis: Covid-19mentioning

confidence: 99%

How scientific research reacts to international public health emergencies: a global analysis of response patterns

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For data visualization and analysis, we applied VOSviewer 3 co-occurrence matrix [49], which refers to collaborative relationships in this study. The process of building the global collaboration network can be divided into three steps.…”

Section: Research Effortmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has shaken up global structures in a range of ways, leaving in its wake an urgent health need that has required rapid and innovative research to control. Biomedical research, with its principles of better patient treatment and illness prevention [ 3 ], has been regarded as a core approach to fighting not just COVID-19 but any infectious disease that would threaten our safety. And what the COVID-19 crisis has shown us is that academia can, and will, “turn on a dime” to respond to emergent health needs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does academia respond to the burden of infectious and parasitic disease?

Zhao

Wang

Zhang

2022

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Academic research is one of the main avenues through which humans can fight the threat of infectious diseases. However, there have been concerns regarding whether the academic system has provided sufficient efforts to fight infectious diseases we potentially face. Answering these questions could contribute to evidence-based recommendations for setting research priorities and third-mission policies. Methods With a focus on one of the most common categories of communicable diseases, infectious and parasitic diseases (IPDs), we searched Web of Science for articles and reviews relevant to IPDs published during the period 2000–2019 and retrieved WHO data on disease burden in corresponding years. The academic response patterns were explored by IPD subcategory and by human development level (an index established by the United Nations). We conduct the analysis in particular to gain insight into the dynamic relationship between disease burden and research effort on IPDs, scientific efforts contributed by countries with different development levels, and the variation trends in international joint efforts. Results The greatest burden of IPDs is clustered in the developing regions of Africa, but has received academic response from both developed and developing countries. Highly developed countries dominate the ranks of academic research in this area, yet there is also a clear increase in research efforts from the countries most affected, despite their low human development scale. In fact, the overall analysis reveals an improved capability for addressing local problems from African regions. In terms of international collaboration, highly developed countries such as the United States and United Kingdom have commonly collaborated with needy regions, whereas prolific but developing nations, like China, have not. Conclusions From a global perspective, academia has positively responded to health needs caused by IPDs. Although the relevant research output contribution is primarily from the highly developed countries, concentrated and specialized efforts from the undeveloped regions to ease their local burden can be clearly observed. Our findings also indicate a tendency to focus more on local health needs for both developed and undeveloped regions. The insights revealed in this study should benefit a more informed and systemic plan of research priorities.

show abstract

“…The first set (CPGREF) consisted of references found in the 77 CPGs published between 2003 and 2018, where the references were published between 1955 and 2019. It was created from the lung cancer CPG references from two data sources: the clinical impact® database [18], and from a CPG reference database created at KCL [28]. The second set (WLCP) consisted of the world output of lung cancer research papers retrieved via the WoS, and published between 2004 and 2018.…”

Section: Two Sets Of Lung Cancer Research Papers and Means Of Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Lung cancer research and its citation on clinical practice guidelines

Pallari

Eriksson²,

Billhult

et al. 2021

Lung Cancer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The impact of medical research is usually judged on the basis of citations in the serial literature. A better test of its utility is through its contribution to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat illness. This study aimed to compare the parameters of lung cancer research papers with those cited as references in lung cancer CPGs from 16 countries, and the Cochrane Collaboration. These comparisons were mainly based on bibliographic data compiled from the Web of Science (WoS). Methodology: We examined 7357 references (of which 4491 were unique) cited in a total of 77 lung cancer CPGs, and compared them with 73,214 lung cancer papers published in the WoS between 2004 and 2018. Results: References used by lung CPGs were much more clinical than the overall body of research papers on this cancer, and their authors predominantly came from smaller northern European countries. However, the leading institutions whose papers were cited the most on these CPGs were from the USA, notably the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. The types of research cited by the CPGs were primarily clinical trials, as well as three treatment modalities (chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery). Genetics, palliative care and quality of life were largely neglected. The median time gap between papers cited on a lung CPG and its publication was 3.5 years longer than for WoS citations. Conclusions: Analysis of the references on CPGs allows an alternative means of research evaluation, and one that may be more appropriate for clinical research than citations in academic journals. Own-country references show the direct contribution of research to a country's health care, and other-country references show the esteem in which this research has been held internationally.

show abstract

How Biomedical Research Can Inform Both Clinicians and the General Public

Cited by 6 publications

References 38 publications

How scientific research reacts to international public health emergencies: a global analysis of response patterns

How scientific research reacts to international public health emergencies: a global analysis of response patterns

How does academia respond to the burden of infectious and parasitic disease?

Lung cancer research and its citation on clinical practice guidelines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About