Dataset Information

Does scientific effort reflect global need? A review of infectious disease publications over 100 years.

ABSTRACT: In a rational world, scientific effort would reflect society's needs. We tested this hypothesis using the area of infectious diseases, where the research response to emerging threats has obvious potential to save lives through informing interventions such as vaccination and prevention policies. Pathogens continue to evolve, emerge and re-emerge and infectious diseases that were once common become less so or their global distribution changes. A question remains as to whether scientific endeavours can adapt. Here, we identified papers on infectious diseases published in the four highest ranking, health-related journals over the 118 years from 1900. Focussing on outbreak-related and burden of disease-related metrics over the two time periods, 1990 to 2017 and 1900 to 2017, our analyses suggest that there is little underrepresentation of important infectious diseases among top ranked journals. Encouragingly our results suggest the scientific process is largely self-correcting.

SUBMITTER: Hayman DTS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6518475 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does scientific effort reflect global need? A review of infectious disease publications over 100 years.

Hayman D T S DTS Baker M G MG

Epidemiology and infection 20190101

In a rational world, scientific effort would reflect society's needs. We tested this hypothesis using the area of infectious diseases, where the research response to emerging threats has obvious potential to save lives through informing interventions such as vaccination and prevention policies. Pathogens continue to evolve, emerge and re-emerge and infectious diseases that were once common become less so or their global distribution changes. A question remains as to whether scientific endeavours ...[more]

PMID: 30869011

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe last 25 years have been a period of innovation in the area of medical informatics. The International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA) has published, every year for the last quarter century, the Yearbook of Medical Informatics, collating selected papers from various journals in an attempt to provide a summary of the academic medical informatics literature. The objective of this paper is to visualize the evolution of the medical informatics field over the last 25 years according to the frequency of word occurrences in the papers published in the IMIA Yearbook of Medical Informatics.MethodsA literature review was conducted examining the IMIA Yearbook of Medical Informatics between 1992 and 2015. These references were collated into a reference manager application to examine the literature using keyword searches, word clouds, and topic clustering. The data was considered in its entirety, as well as segregated into 3 time periods to examine the evolution of main trends over time. Several methods were used, including word clouds, cluster maps, and custom developed web-based information dashboards.ResultsThe literature search resulted in a total of 1210 references published in the Yearbook, of which 213 references were excluded, resulting in 997 references for visualization. Overall, we found that publications were more technical and methods-oriented between 1992 and 1999; more clinically and patient-oriented between 2000 and 2009; and noted the emergence of "big data", decision support, and global health in the past decade between 2010 and 2015. Dashboards were additionally created to show individual reference data, as well as, aggregated information.ConclusionMedical informatics is a vast and expanding area with new methods and technologies being researched, implemented, and evaluated. Determining visualization approaches that enhance our understanding of literature is an active area of research, and like medical informatics, is constantly evolving as new software and algorithms are developed. This paper examined several approaches for visualizing the medical informatics literature to show historical trends, associations, and aggregated summarized information to illustrate the state and changes in the IMIA Yearbook publications over the last quarter century.

Project description:In addition to its primary regulatory role, the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is engaged in many forms of scientific authorship. During the period of 2010 to 2018, FDA oncology staff contributed to 356 publications in the scientific literature. Here, we collaborated with analysts in the Office of Program Planning, Analysis, and Evaluation at the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health (NIH), to present a series of analyses aimed at quantifying the characteristics and potential impact of these contributions, as well as characterizing the areas of work addressed. We found that FDA oncology papers are enriched for high-impact publications and have about two times the number of citations as an average NIH-funded paper. Further impact of the publications was measured based on the presence of 65 publications that were cited by guidelines and 12 publications cited by publicly listed clinical trials. The results seen here are promising in determining the impact of FDA oncology publication work but prompt further investigation into longer-term impacts, such as the influence of this work on other regulatory activities at FDA. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article describes the first comprehensive study of scientific publications produced by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology staff. The analysis illustrates that staff are highly engaged in publishing in the scientific literature in addition to completing regulatory review work. Publications are generally in clinical medicine, consistent with the large number of medical oncologists working at the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products (OHOP). OHOP publications generally focus either on communicating important regulatory work (approval summaries) or highlighting regulatory science issues to encourage dialogue with the scientific community (commentaries, reviews, and expert working papers). The analysis also suggests that several FDA oncology publications may influence clinical guidelines, but further work is needed to evaluate impact.

Dataset Information

Does scientific effort reflect global need? A review of infectious disease publications over 100 years.

Publications

Does scientific effort reflect global need? A review of infectious disease publications over 100 years.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets