Search

Aim This study examined the outputs of research papers in diabetes from 31 European countries between 2002 and 2013, and their funding. Methods Diabetes research papers in the Web of Science were identified by means of a filter based on journals and title words. For 2009-2013 papers, the funders were coded to show their sector and nationality. Results Europe published 40 547 diabetes papers in the 12 years between 2002 and 2013. Denmark, Sweden and Finland published the most relative to their wealth, but the UK published the most absolutely despite an apparently low burden (as measured by disability-adjusted life years). The largest source of funding was government (30%), followed by the non-profit sector (18%) and industry (13%). The European Commission supported 2.7% of papers, but more in Latvia (33%) and Estonia (16%). Based on an estimated cost per paper of €260 000, the annual research expenditure in Europe was approximately €986 million in 2013. Conclusions The European diabetes burden in disability-adjusted life years increased by one third between 2002 and 2012, but its output of research papers has decreased from 44% to 36% of the world total. This decrease needs to be reviewed in the context of European non-communicable disease research policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article features a research that investigates the role of policies and funding in the development of cancer drug in Europe and the U.S. It offers information on the vital role of funding in mapping oncology research and development (R & D) and management in the U.S. and Europe. It also examines the strategies used in oncology R & D, public-private partnerships (PPP) and policies in oncology innovation. Moreover, funds are needed to boost treatment of cancer and oncology R&D, to further oncology innovation and to improve patient survival and outcomes.

Aim: Cancer is one of Europe's key research missions, with gender equity a major policy pillar. To benchmark how well European countries perform for gender balance in cancer research, high quality intelligence is required., Methods: For cancer research papers in Europe (EUR31; the 28 EU Member States plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) from two specific years (2009 and 2019), we evaluated the numbers of female authors overall and then the female last-author presence, as a proxy of female cancer research leadership., Results: Overall, female authorship increased from 42% to 49%. In 2009, females represented 50% or more of cancer research authors in only five EUR31 countries. By 2019, that number had risen to 17. In Eastern European (EE) countries, females were more likely to be in the majority. The presence of female cancer research authors in the last (senior) author position increased from 24% to 34%. Five of the top six countries for female authorship in 2019 were from EE, whereas disappointingly four central European countries (Austria (AT), Czechia (CZ), Germany (DE) and Switzerland (CH)) were below the 25th percentile. A number of European powerhouses of cancer research (UK, DE, CH) underperformed in terms of female cancer research leadership. However, when cancer researchers from these countries worked abroad (e.g. Scandinavia, USA) the percentage of females was similar to that of their host countries. A factor potentially influencing female cancer research participation was availability and relative cost of child-care, which is more favourable in Scandinavia and EE than in central/western Europe., Conclusion: Our data show that Horizon Europe's Cancer Mission must ensure gender equity in its future research programmes and support the enhancement of female cancer research leadership opportunities., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest ML declares honoraria for presentations unrelated to this work from Bayer, Carnall Farrar, EMD Serono, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. No other authors declare DOI., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The purpose of this study was to provide an evidence base for colorectal cancer research activity that might influence policy, mainly at the national level. Improvements in healthcare delivery have lengthened life expectancy, but within a situation of increased cancer incidence. The disease burden of CRC has risen significantly, particularly in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Research is key to its control and reduction, but few studies have delineated the volume and funding of global research on CRC. We identified research papers in the Web of Science (WoS) from 2007 to 2021, and determined the contributions of the leading countries, the research domains studied, and their sources of funding. We identified 62 716 papers, representing 5.7% of all cancer papers. This percentage was somewhat disproportionate to the disease burden (7.7% in 2015), especially in Eastern Europe. International collaboration increased over the time period in almost all countries except in China. Genetics, surgery and prognosis were the leading research domains. However, research on palliative care and quality-of-life in CRC was lacking. In Western Europe, the main funding source was the charity sector, particularly in the UK, but in most other countries government played the leading role, especially in China and the USA. There was little support from industry. Several Asian countries provided minimal contestable funding, which may have reduced the impact of their CRC research. Certain countries must perform more CRC research overall, especially in domains such as screening, palliative care and quality-of-life. The private-non-profit sector should be an alternative source of support., (© 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average 10-year survival for all European cancer patients by 2035., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests ML declares honoraria from Bayer, Carnall Farrar, EMD Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche unrelated to this work and membership of the board of the European Cancer Organisation (ECO). AA declares Advanced NIH Fellowship unrelated to this work. AMB declares honorarium from Roche unrelated to this work and Presidency of Lung Cancer Europe. MC declares membership of the board of ECO and the European Society of Oncology Pharmacy. FC declares consultancy and advisory board membership of Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Iqvia, Macrogenics, Medscape, Merck-Sharp, Merus, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, PierreFabre, prIME Oncology, Roche, Sanofi, Samsung Bioepis, Seagen, Teva, and Touchime unrelated to this work. TC declares honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Pfizer, and Takeda unrelated to this work. LD declares consultancy from the International Cancer Research Partnership unrelated to this work. FDN declares grants from the AIRC Foundation for Cancer Research, Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro, and Fondazione Piemontese per la Ricerca sul Cancro-ONLUS, and consultancy from Pierre Fabre unrelated to this work. JJ declares consultancy from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, and Merck Sharpe & Dohme unrelated to this work. DK declares honoraria from Merck Sharpe & Dohme unrelated to this work. TKo declares grants from Ipsen, AAA Pharma, Novartis, Isotope Technologies Munich, Victory Net Foundation, and Camulus, and honoraria or support from Cor2Ed, Ipsen, ECO, International Cancer Genome Consortium unrelated to this work. CLV received support from AIRC Foundation. YL is chair of the HERO VBHC and member of the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) Scientific Committee, the Belgian College of Oncology, and a personal investigator on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/ESTRO E2-RADIATE project. PS declares support from ECO and the European School of Oncology. SO, KO, AS, CA, PN, KA, MA, AC, MPC, ACo, CLD, AE, SE, MG, BJo, OK, TKu, GL, FM, JP, TP, RP, BR, ITR, MJS, GSB, JVH, EV, WW, UW, and RS declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite alcohol and illicit drug dependence being one of the most common diagnoses in Europe, there is heterogeneity of research evidence used in policy and practice., Objective: We sought to (1) evaluate European research outputs on alcohol misuse and drug addiction in 2002-2018 in the Web of Science, (2) compare these with their burden of disease and (3) determine their impact in several ways., Methods: A bibliometric research was undertaken including an assessment of the citation counts, the influence of research on members of national health advisory committees, and their contribution to the evidence base of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs)., Findings: There were 3201 analysed references cited in 28 CPGs across 11 European Countries on alcohol misuse and illicit drug abuse. Research conducted in the USA dominated both sets of CPGs, while many European countries were overcited relative to their research presence. The illicit drug research appeared to be adequate relative to the evidence of harm in Europe. However, alcohol misuse research appeared grossly inadequate to the harm it causes by a factor of 20., Conclusions: The volume of research on illicit drug addiction is commensurate to the European burden, whereas alcohol misuse is far below what is needed to curb a significant source of harm., Clinical Implications: The research asymmetries call for attention to the causes of the problem. Development of research-based solutions to a serious social harm is needed, including minimum pricing and collaborative work to harmonise efforts on disease management and treatment practices across European countries., Competing Interests: Competing interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The burden of mental health disorders in Europe is well above the world average and has increased from 11.5% to 13.9% of the total disease burden in 2000 and 2015. That from dementia has increased rapidly, and overtaken that from depression as the leading component. There have been no analyses of the research activity in Europe to combat this burden., Methodology: We identified research papers in the Web of Science (WoS) with a complex mental health disorders filter based on title words and journal names in the years 2001-18, and downloaded their details for analysis., Results: European mental health disorders research represented less than 6% of the total biomedical research. We estimate that research expenditure in Europe on mental health disorders amounted to about €5.4 billion in 2018. The Scandinavian countries, with Croatia and Estonia, published the most relative to their wealth, but the outputs of France and Romania were less than half the amounts expected., Discussion and Conclusions: The burden from mental health disorders is increasing rapidly in Europe, but research was only half what would have been proportional. Suicide & self-harm, and alcohol misuse, were also neglected by researchers, particularly since the latter also causes many physical burdens, such as foetal alcohol syndrome, interpersonal violence, and road traffic accidents. Other relatively neglected subjects are sexual disorders, obsessive compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity and sleep disorders. There is an increasing volume of research on alternative (non-drug) therapies, particularly for post-traumatic stress and eating disorders, notably in Germany., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Cancer research is an essential part of national cancer control programmes, and the emerging economies of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Russian Federation and Central Asia (R-CA) (Commonwealth of Independent States) remain relatively understudied. Here, we map the cancer research activity from the 29 countries across these regions over a 10-year period (2007-2016), using a standard scientometric approach. Research activity was compared with the countries' wealth and with the disease burden from different cancers, and analyses were also performed by the research domain (e.g. fundamental cancer biology, surgery). We found that although there was a correlation between outputs and national wealth, there were many outliers; the CEE countries publishing relatively more, and the R-CA, less. Outputs reflected cancer burdens, but there was a relative paucity of research on lung, colorectal, gastric and pancreatic cancer, as well as research domains such as screening and palliative care. Clinical trials accounted for only 3% of all research outputs from all countries, and were very international, with on average 1.5 CEE countries and 8.0 others involved in each article, and they were heavily cited (on average, 84 times in 5 years). Poland was by far the most research-active country, but significant needs and opportunities have been identified to expand the cancer research activity in all CEE and R-CA countries to enhance national cancer control planning., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cancer research is among the most active biomedical research domains for the European Union (EU). However, little quantitative empirical evidence is available to guide the decisions on the choice of disease site to study, specific research domain focus or allocation of research resources. To inform national/supranational cancer research policy, high-resolution intelligence is needed., Methods: We performed a bibliometric analysis of European cancer research papers in the Web of Science from 2002 to 2013 to quantify research activity in each of the 28 EU Member States, along with Iceland, Norway and Switzerland (EUR31), which cancer sites/research domains they addressed, and their sources of financial support (2009-2013)., Findings: Cancer research papers from EUR31 correlated well with national Gross Domestic Products (r 2  = 0.94). However, certain cancer sites (lung, oesophagus and pancreas) were under-researched relative to their disease burden, whereas central nervous system and blood cancers were more generously supported than their burden would warrant. An analysis of research domains indicated a paucity of research on radiotherapy (5%), palliative care (1.2%) and quality of life (0.5%). European cancer research funding in 2012-2013 amounted to ∼€7.6 billion and came from diverse sources, especially in western Europe/Scandinavia, where in nine countries the charitable sector outspent the government but not in Eastern Europe where charitable research funding barely exists., Interpretation: Several countries need to increase their cancer research outputs substantially, and/or alter their research portfolios to better match their growing (and changing) cancer burden. More co-ordination among funding agencies is required, so that resources can be attuned to align activities to research gaps and perceived clinical needs. In Eastern Europe, the charitable funding sector needs to be developed, so that both public and patient advocacy can have an active role in research., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Cancer research has carved an astonishing trajectory giving rise to a multi billion euro global network covering most domains of science and including all manner of research funders from industry to government and philanthropic funders. We have estimated that in 2004/2005 the global spend on cancer research was 14,030 million euro, with the USA, dominated by the NCI (c. 83%) accounting for the largest absolute spend. This is between 2 and 3 times the level of per capita spend compared to EU-15 and Europe, respectively. In Europe, the UK is at comparable levels of spend compared to the USA. Funding for cancer research in Europe is split almost 50:50 between philanthropic and governmental sources. Cancer research productivity in terms of outputs (publications) is slightly greater in Europe compared to the USA with an increasing trend towards more applied (clinical) outputs. Both the USA and Europe have equally strong industry-supported output levels.

Malaria is estimated to cause about 1.6% of the 57 million deaths occurring annually and 2.3% of the disease burden. However, it accounts for only about 0.4% of world biomedical research, and this percentage is barely changing. Most of the research takes place in Europe and North America, which are little affected directly by the disease, 90% of whose burden occurs in sub-Saharan Africa. Research includes both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical approaches; the fastest growing ones involve the artemisinins and genetics. Leading countries in malaria research (including India, Thailand, Kenya and Nigeria) differ greatly in the subjects that they favour.

Background: Our aim, within the collaborative study SPHERE (Strengthening Public Health Research in Europe), was to produce a bibliometric overview of public health research literature for Europe., Methods: A search strategy ('filter') was designed to interrogate the Science Citation Index (SCI) and the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) databases for research articles published between 01/01/1995 and 31/12/2004 in any language. We analysed output for country by population, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), burden of disease using DALYs, and language., Results: Overlap between the two databases SCI and SSCI was 35%. 210,433 publications were identified after duplicates were removed, a world total of about 20,000 per year. Approximately 7,000 papers per year were produced in Europe and 9,400 by the USA. Thirteen of 28 individual European countries produced more than 100 public health papers per year. Publications per capita were highest in northern European countries. In multiple regression analyses, GDP was a modest predictor (r(2) = 0.53, P < 0.02) of publications for European countries, while population size and disability adjusted life years were not significantly related. Smaller countries and lower producers of public health research were more likely to collaborate with other countries. Of the publications, 3.5% were published in a non-English language, with German the most common., Conclusion: There is marked variation in public health publication by country in Europe. Eastern and southern European countries appear to under-invest in public health research compared with northern European countries and compared to relative health need.

Aims: To examine the volume and potential impact of gastroenterology research outputs from 1985 to 1998 from 14 developed countries; the overlap with research in cancer, infectious diseases, and genetics; and the funding sources for this research. To determine if countries' research outputs correlated with their burden of corresponding diseases and inputs to their research., Methods: Selective retrieval of papers from the Science Citation Index and manual look up of a sample to determine funding sources. Classification of journals by four categories of research level (clinical/basic) and potential impact (low/high)., Results: Gastroenterology represents about 8% of world biomedical research but over 11% in Italy, Japan, and Spain. Its potential impact is highest (but declining) for the USA. It has increased noticeably in most European countries, particularly in Finland. Gastroenterology research has become more clinical in Japan, Spain, Australia, and the Netherlands but more basic in Canada, Germany, Finland, Israel, and South Africa. Funding comes primarily from national governments, followed by national private non-profit sources and industry but little industrial funding occurs in some countries. There is a strong and positive correlation between reported deaths from gastrointestinal neoplasms and countries' outputs of research in gastrointestinal oncology., Conclusions: Bibliometric analysis can reveal differences between countries in their research in a subject when a common methodology is applied to an international database. Variations in research methods in different countries can plausibly explain some of the variation in the potential impact of the work.