Research gap in cardiovascular disease in developing countries

Mendis, Shanthi; Yach, Derek; Bengoa, Rafael; Narvaez, D.M.; Zhang, X

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13753-1

Cited by 56 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our research reported also a low proportion of articles from authors from developing countries in the scientific literature in the field of bioethics. This corresponds with similar studies in leading medical journals [10] and many other research fields, including psychiatry [11], cardiovascular disease [12], epidemiology and HIV/AIDS [13], and tropical medicine [14]. The serious under-representation of authors from low and middle income countries in leading bioethical journals has among others to do with a language barrier, the lack of funding for research and health care, the difficult access to international journals, and editorial bias [15].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How international is bioethics? A quantitative retrospective study

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundStudying the contribution of individual countries to leading journals in a specific discipline can highlight which countries have the most impact on that discipline and whether a geographic bias exists. This article aims to examine the international distribution of publications in the field of bioethics.MethodsRetrospective quantitative study of nine peer reviewed journals in the field of bioethics and medical ethics (Bioethics, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Hastings Center Report, Journal of Clinical Ethics, Journal of Medical Ethics, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Nursing Ethics, Christian Bioethics, and Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics).ResultsIn total, 4,029 articles published between 1990 and 2003 were retrieved from the nine bioethical journals under study. The United States (59.3%, n = 2390), the United Kingdom (13.5%, n = 544), Canada (4%, n = 160) and Australia (3.8%, n = 154) had the highest number of publications in terms of absolute number of publications. When normalized to population size, smaller affluent countries, such as New Zealand, Finland and Sweden were more productive than the United States. The number of studies originating from the USA was decreasing in the period between 1990 and 2003.ConclusionWhile a lot of peer reviewed journals in the field of bioethics profile themselves as international journals, they certainly do not live up to what one would expect from an "international" journal. The fact that English speaking countries, and to a larger extent American authors, dominate the international journals in the field of bioethics is a clear geographic bias towards the bioethical discussions that are going on in these journals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Recently research has been done in the fields of anesthesiology [1], cardiology [2], and medical informatics [3]. Other geographic analyses have compared biomedical publications in the European Union and in the United States.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How international is bioethics? A quantitative retrospective study

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, only about one-third of the world's deaths are presently covered by civil registration systems (50). The extension of such systems to LMIC would greatly enhance the capacity of health systems to support operational research aimed at evaluating the effects of novel strategies for Cost-Effectiveness of Combination Therapy Compared With No Treatment for CVD Prevention in Developing Countries Table 3 Cost-Effectiveness of Combination CVD prevention and control in these settings (51). The recently established Global Partnership to Stem the Growth of Chronic Diseases, involving Ovations (a United Health care subsidiary), the WHO, the National Institutes of Health, and the Oxford Health Alliance, incorporates the promotion of such research within its objectives (52).…”

Section: Addressing Inequalities In Access To Cardiovascular Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Global Inequalities in Access to Cardiovascular Health Care

Joshi

Jan

et al. 2008

Journal of the American College of Cardiology

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) was the leading cause of death globally in 2005, responsible for 17.5 million deaths, more than 80% of which occurred in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). In these regions, CVD occurs at a much younger age than in high-income countries, thereby contributing disproportionately to lost potential years of healthy life as well as lost economic productivity. Many effective interventions for CVD prevention and management are now affordable for all but the very poorest countries, but large treatment gaps still exist because of poor prescribing practices, limited availability of medicines, and lack of appropriately skilled health care providers. Despite the increasing awareness of the growing epidemic of CVD in LMIC, this public health priority has received little attention from those who determine the international health agenda. Although the burden of CVD is already enormous in developing countries, there exists a window of opportunity to prevent the epidemic reaching its full potential magnitude. This requires the rapid deployment of strategies already proven to be effective in high-income countries. Such strategies need to be tailored for LMIC for them to be affordable, effective, and accessible to disadvantaged groups and the burgeoning middle classes. Ideally, the control of CVD in these countries would involve a dual approach in which evidence-based clinical strategies for CVD prevention and treatment are complemented by evidence-based population level strategies. We propose that upgrading primary health care services is a central requirement for the control of the CVD epidemics facing the developing world.

show abstract

“…However, data on the nature of research publications are limited both from developed and developing countries. Mendis et al (9) attempted to quantify the CVD research output from different categories of nations. They searched the MEDLINE database and reported that developed market economies contribute 78% of the research publications, highlighting the research gaps in the developing nations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%