Search

INTRODUCTION: Research is a critical pillar in national cancer control planning. However, there is a dearth of evidence for countries to implement affordable strategies. The WHO and various Commissions have recommended developing stakeholder-based needs assessments based on objective data to generate evidence to inform national and regional prioritisation of cancer research needs and goals. METHODOLOGY: Bibliometric algorithms (macros) were developed and validated to assess cancer research outputs of all 54 African countries over a 12-year period (2009-2020). Subanalysis included collaboration patterns, site and domain-specific focus of research and understanding authorship dynamics by both position and sex. Detailed subanalysis was performed to understand multiple impact metrics and context relative outputs in comparison with the disease burden as well as the application of a funding thesaurus to determine funding resources. RESULTS: African countries in total published 23 679 cancer research papers over the 12-year period (2009-2020) with the fractional African contribution totalling 16 201 papers and the remaining 7478 from authors from out with the continent. The total number of papers increased rapidly with time, with an annual growth rate of 15%. The 49 sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries together published just 5281 papers, of which South Africa's contribution was 2206 (42% of the SSA total, 14% of all Africa) and Nigeria's contribution was 997 (19% of the SSA total, 4% of all Africa). Cancer research accounted for 7.9% of all African biomedical research outputs (African research in infectious diseases was 5.1 times than that of cancer research). Research outputs that are proportionally low relative to their burden across Africa are paediatric, cervical, oesophageal and prostate cancer. African research mirrored that of Western countries in terms of its focus on discovery science and pharmaceutical research. The percentages of female researchers in Africa wer

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. © 2021 King's College London

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. © 2021 King's College London

©2016 Begum et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. This study was conducted in order to map European research in chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs). It was intended to assist the European Commission and other research funders to identify gaps and overlaps in their portfolios, and to suggest ways in which they could improve the effectiveness of their support and increase the impact of the research on patient care and on the reduction of the incidence of the CRDs. Articles and reviews were identified in the Web of Science on research in six non-communicable respiratory diseases that were published in 2002-13 from 31 European countries. They represented only 0.8% of biomedical research output but these diseases accounted for 4.7% of the European disease burden, as measured by Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs), so the sub-field is seriously under-researched. Europe is prominent in the sub-field and published 56% of the world total, with the UK the most productive and publishing more than France and Italy, the next two countries, combined. Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) were the diseases with the most publications and the highest citation rates. They also received the most funding, with around two acknowledgments per paper (in 2009-13), whereas cystic fibrosis and emphysema averaged only one. Just over 37% of papers had no specific funding and depended on institutional support from universities and hospitals.

© 2016 The Author(s). Background: Mental health disorders (MHDs) constitute a large and growing disease burden in Europe, although they typically receive less attention and research funding than other non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This study protocol describes a methodology for the mapping of MHD research in Europe as part of Mapping_NCD, a 2-year project funded by the European Commission which seeks to map European research funding and impact for five NCDs in order to identify potential gaps, overlaps, synergies and opportunities, and to develop evidence-based policies for future research. Methods: The project aims to develop a multi-focal view of the MHD research landscape across the 28 European Union Member States, plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, through a survey of European funding entities, analysis of research initiatives undertaken in the public, voluntary/not-for-profit and commercial sectors, and expert interviews to contextualize the gathered data. The impact of MHD research will be explored using bibliometric analyses of scientific publications, clinical guidelines and newspaper stories reporting on research initiatives. Finally, these research inputs and outputs will be considered in light of various metrics that have been proposed to inform priorities for the allocation of research funds, including burden of disease, treatment gaps and cost of illness. Discussion: Given the growing burden of MHDs, a clear and broad view of the current state of MHD research is needed to ensure that limited resources are directed to evidence-based priority areas. MHDs pose a particular challenge in mapping the research landscape due to their complex nature, high co-morbidity and varying diagnostic criteria. Undertaking such an effort across 31 countries is further challenged by differences in data collection, healthcare systems, reimbursement rates and clinical practices, as well as cultural and socioeconomic diversity. Using multiple methods to explore the spec

©2016 Begum et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. This study was conducted in order to map European research in chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs). It was intended to assist the European Commission and other research funders to identify gaps and overlaps in their portfolios, and to suggest ways in which they could improve the effectiveness of their support and increase the impact of the research on patient care and on the reduction of the incidence of the CRDs. Articles and reviews were identified in the Web of Science on research in six non-communicable respiratory diseases that were published in 2002-13 from 31 European countries. They represented only 0.8% of biomedical research output but these diseases accounted for 4.7% of the European disease burden, as measured by Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs), so the sub-field is seriously under-researched. Europe is prominent in the sub-field and published 56% of the world total, with the UK the most productive and publishing more than France and Italy, the next two countries, combined. Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) were the diseases with the most publications and the highest citation rates. They also received the most funding, with around two acknowledgments per paper (in 2009-13), whereas cystic fibrosis and emphysema averaged only one. Just over 37% of papers had no specific funding and depended on institutional support from universities and hospitals.

© 2016 The Author(s). Background: Mental health disorders (MHDs) constitute a large and growing disease burden in Europe, although they typically receive less attention and research funding than other non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This study protocol describes a methodology for the mapping of MHD research in Europe as part of Mapping_NCD, a 2-year project funded by the European Commission which seeks to map European research funding and impact for five NCDs in order to identify potential gaps, overlaps, synergies and opportunities, and to develop evidence-based policies for future research. Methods: The project aims to develop a multi-focal view of the MHD research landscape across the 28 European Union Member States, plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, through a survey of European funding entities, analysis of research initiatives undertaken in the public, voluntary/not-for-profit and commercial sectors, and expert interviews to contextualize the gathered data. The impact of MHD research will be explored using bibliometric analyses of scientific publications, clinical guidelines and newspaper stories reporting on research initiatives. Finally, these research inputs and outputs will be considered in light of various metrics that have been proposed to inform priorities for the allocation of research funds, including burden of disease, treatment gaps and cost of illness. Discussion: Given the growing burden of MHDs, a clear and broad view of the current state of MHD research is needed to ensure that limited resources are directed to evidence-based priority areas. MHDs pose a particular challenge in mapping the research landscape due to their complex nature, high co-morbidity and varying diagnostic criteria. Undertaking such an effort across 31 countries is further challenged by differences in data collection, healthcare systems, reimbursement rates and clinical practices, as well as cultural and socioeconomic diversity. Using multiple methods to explore the spec

© 2016 The Author(s). Background: Mental health disorders (MHDs) constitute a large and growing disease burden in Europe, although they typically receive less attention and research funding than other non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This study protocol describes a methodology for the mapping of MHD research in Europe as part of Mapping_NCD, a 2-year project funded by the European Commission which seeks to map European research funding and impact for five NCDs in order to identify potential gaps, overlaps, synergies and opportunities, and to develop evidence-based policies for future research. Methods: The project aims to develop a multi-focal view of the MHD research landscape across the 28 European Union Member States, plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, through a survey of European funding entities, analysis of research initiatives undertaken in the public, voluntary/not-for-profit and commercial sectors, and expert interviews to contextualize the gathered data. The impact of MHD research will be explored using bibliometric analyses of scientific publications, clinical guidelines and newspaper stories reporting on research initiatives. Finally, these research inputs and outputs will be considered in light of various metrics that have been proposed to inform priorities for the allocation of research funds, including burden of disease, treatment gaps and cost of illness. Discussion: Given the growing burden of MHDs, a clear and broad view of the current state of MHD research is needed to ensure that limited resources are directed to evidence-based priority areas. MHDs pose a particular challenge in mapping the research landscape due to their complex nature, high co-morbidity and varying diagnostic criteria. Undertaking such an effort across 31 countries is further challenged by differences in data collection, healthcare systems, reimbursement rates and clinical practices, as well as cultural and socioeconomic diversity. Using multiple methods to explore the spec

©2016 Begum et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. This study was conducted in order to map European research in chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs). It was intended to assist the European Commission and other research funders to identify gaps and overlaps in their portfolios, and to suggest ways in which they could improve the effectiveness of their support and increase the impact of the research on patient care and on the reduction of the incidence of the CRDs. Articles and reviews were identified in the Web of Science on research in six non-communicable respiratory diseases that were published in 2002-13 from 31 European countries. They represented only 0.8% of biomedical research output but these diseases accounted for 4.7% of the European disease burden, as measured by Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs), so the sub-field is seriously under-researched. Europe is prominent in the sub-field and published 56% of the world total, with the UK the most productive and publishing more than France and Italy, the next two countries, combined. Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) were the diseases with the most publications and the highest citation rates. They also received the most funding, with around two acknowledgments per paper (in 2009-13), whereas cystic fibrosis and emphysema averaged only one. Just over 37% of papers had no specific funding and depended on institutional support from universities and hospitals.

Overcoming childhood cancers is critically dependent on the state of research. Understanding how, with whom and what the research community is doing with childhood cancers is essential for ensuring the evidence-based policies at national and European level to support children, their families and researchers. As part of the European Union funded EUROCANCERCOMS project to study and integrate cancer communications across Europe, we have carried out new research into the state of research in childhood cancers. We are very grateful for all the support we have received from colleagues in the European paediatric oncology community, and in particular from Edel Fitzgerald and Samira Essiaf from the SIOP Europe office. This report and the evidence-based policies that arise from it come at a important junction for Europe and its Member States. They provide a timely reminder that research into childhood cancers is critical and needs sustainable long-term support.

This report presents a map of the landscape of biomedical research in the UK, based on an analysis of biomedical papers published in the UK in the 12 years between 1989 and 2000 as recorded in Research Outputs Database (ROD). It provides an analysis of published research outputs for all of UK biomedicine and for 32 selected biomedical sub-fields. The analyses include the examination of the types of biomedical research carried out in the UK and their potential impact as well as of funding sources, authorship patterns and domestic and international collaboration. It also sets the UK in an international context, providing and comparing data on the biomedical outputs of 12 OECD nations and other selected countries around the world. The global comparison uses data from 1989-2002. These data is sourced from CD-ROM versions of both the Science Citation Index (SCI) and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) produced by the Institute for Scientific Information in Philadelphia. Finally, the report explores new possible directions for an evaluation of the impact of research. For instance, it explores the relationship between different countries’ research commitments to the individual sub-fields, and their relative burden of disease, expands on the citation of research papers by clinical guidelines and explores the possibilities of assessing the impact by analysing citations of research by newspapers and in medical education. It also reports new methodological developments aimed at improving our analyses, for instance, a new method of assigning research levels to journal articles.

This report presents a map of the landscape of biomedical research in the UK, based on an analysis of biomedical papers published in the UK in the 12 years between 1989 and 2000 as recorded in Research Outputs Database (ROD). It provides an analysis of published research outputs for all of UK biomedicine and for 32 selected biomedical sub-fields. The analyses include the examination of the types of biomedical research carried out in the UK and their potential impact as well as of funding sources, authorship patterns and domestic and international collaboration. It also sets the UK in an international context, providing and comparing data on the biomedical outputs of 12 OECD nations and other selected countries around the world. The global comparison uses data from 1989-2002. These data is sourced from CD-ROM versions of both the Science Citation Index (SCI) and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) produced by the Institute for Scientific Information in Philadelphia. Finally, the report explores new possible directions for an evaluation of the impact of research. For instance, it explores the relationship between different countries’ research commitments to the individual sub-fields, and their relative burden of disease, expands on the citation of research papers by clinical guidelines and explores the possibilities of assessing the impact by analysing citations of research by newspapers and in medical education. It also reports new methodological developments aimed at improving our analyses, for instance, a new method of assigning research levels to journal articles.