Dataset Information

Understanding the contribution of UK public health research to clinical guidelines: a bibliometric analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background: There is an increasing need to understand the wider impacts of research on society and the economy. For health research, a key focus is understanding the impact of research on practice and ultimately on patient outcomes. This can be challenging to measure, but one useful proxy for changes in practice is impact on guidelines. Methods: The aim of this study is to map the contribution of UK research and UK research funders to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) public health guidelines, understanding areas of strengths and weakness and the level of collaboration and coordination across countries and between funders. The work consisted of two main elements: analysis of the references cited on NICE guidelines and interviews with experts in public health. Results: Across the papers cited on 62 NICE public health guidelines, we find that 28% of the papers matched include at least one UK affiliation, which is relatively high when compared to other health fields. In total, 165 unique funders were identified with more than three acknowledgements, based in 20 countries. 68% of papers which acknowledge funding cite at least one UK funder, and NIHR is the most highly cited funder in the sample. Conclusions: The UK makes an important contribution to public health research cited on NICE PH guidelines, although the research does not appear to be bibliometrically distinct from other research sectors, other than having a relatively low level of international collaboration. However, the extent to which NICE public health guidelines reflect practice at the local authority level is less clear. More research is needed to understand the sources of evidence to support public health decision making at the local level and how NICE guidance can be made more applicable, timely and accessible in this new context.

SUBMITTER: Guthrie S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7845157 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Understanding the contribution of UK public health research to clinical guidelines: a bibliometric analysis.

Guthrie Susan S Cochrane Gavin G Deshpande Advait A Macaluso Benoit B Larivière Vincent V

F1000Research 20190715

<b>Background:</b> There is an increasing need to understand the wider impacts of research on society and the economy. For health research, a key focus is understanding the impact of research on practice and ultimately on patient outcomes. This can be challenging to measure, but one useful proxy for changes in practice is impact on guidelines. <b>Methods:</b> The aim of this study is to map the contribution of UK research and UK research funders to the National Institute for Health and Clinical ...[more]

PMID: 33552472

Similar Datasets

Project description:A substantial growth has been reported in Iran's number of clinical, biomedical, and public health research publications over the last 30 years. It is of interest to investigate whether this quantitative growth has also led to a larger number of papers with a high citation impact; to explore where the capacity for performing research lies; and which fields/institutions are lagging behind.This was a bibliometric study. Web of Science Core Collection and its different tools were used for retrieving and analysing the publications. Information about the journals was found on Journal Citation Reports®. Different types of collaborations across the highly-cited papers was investigated based on the affiliations, the characteristics of the language of the authors' names, and the authors' study and work backgrounds.Iran's number of clinical, biomedical, and public health research publications has substantially increased since 2000, a surge was seen in 2007, and the figure reached a peak in 2011. 11% of the publications were in Pharmacology Pharmacy; and the majority originated in Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Six of the 10 journals that had published the most were Iranian journals. H-index of publications had also increased over time (almost doubled between 2000 and 2010). 30.9% of the most-cited publications had only relied on Iranian resources (including 48 publications); had been published in journals with impact factors ranging between 0.4 and 8.3; and the majority were original basic sciences research.In Iran, a great capacity for research lies in clinical, biomedical, and public health fields which can be strengthened with further investment. It is important to use this capacity in a way that would align with the national population health needs. It is also essential to consider the limitations of only relying on bibliometric tools for assessing health research activities. Finally, the Iranian science policy-makers are encouraged to (i) support the researchers and institutions that have proved research capacity; (ii) direct further resources towards research areas and/or institutions that are lagging behind; (iii) facilitate further international collaboration with the academics and/or institutions that have shown the capacity for conducting successful research projects with Iran.

Project description:Background and Objectives: The evaluative strength of available bibliometric tools in the field of clinical embryology has never been examined in the literature. The aim is to bring insight regarding the identity of clinical embryology research, introducing concerns when solely relying on the methodology of bibliometric analysis. Methods: An all-inclusive analysis of the most bibliometrically highlighted scientific contributions regarding the cornerstones of clinical embryology was performed employing the Scopus, Web of Science (WoS) and PubMed databases, between 1978-2018. An analysis of the number of publications, respective citations and h-index, g-index, along with m-quotient is presented. The top 30 contributing authors for each distinctive area of research are listed. An attempt at visualizing the yearly published articles, clusters, and collaborations of authors, along with the geographic origin of publications, is also presented. Results: Combining all searches and keywords yielded 54,522 results. In the Scopus database, employing the keyword "In Vitro Fertilization" yielded 41,292 results. The publications of the top five authors in each research field were analytically presented and compared to the total number of publications for each respective field. The research field of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis/Screening/Testing was allocated the highest percentage of publications produced by the top five authors. Regarding journal bibliometrics, based on the year 2017 metrics, there are only 29 journals according to WoS that refer to "Reproductive Biology", ranking it 187th among 235 disciplines. The USA produced the highest number of publications (12,537). Conclusion: Results indicate an explosion of interest published in the literature regarding the field of clinical embryology. Further analysis on collaborations and the trends involved should be of added value as productivity between countries varies significantly. This may guide researchers, in vitro fertilization professionals, and prospective authors during literature search, while proving useful regarding manuscript design and concurring on keywords and abstract content.

Project description:BackgroundA total of 22,367 bibliometric articles have been indexed by Web of Science (WoS). The most significant contribution to the field has not yet been identified through bibliometric analysis. A comparison of individual research achievements (IRAs) and trend analysis of article citations are required after extracting bibliometric articles. The study aimed to confirm whether the leading author has a dominant RA and which articles are worth reading for readers using trend analysis.MethodsWe identified authors with at least 100 articles related to bibliometrics in the WoS core collection. A total of 399 articles were collected to cluster author collaborations. Co-word analysis and chord diagrams were used to match chief authors in clusters with Keywords Plus in WoS core collection. The category, journal impact factor, authorship, and L-index (CJAL) score and the absolute advantage coefficient (AAC) were used to compare IRAs and identify the leading author who dominated the field significantly beyond the next 2 authors. In addition to network charts and chord diagrams, 4 visualizations were used to report study results, including a Sankey diagram, a dot plot, a temporal trend graph, and a radar plot. The temporal bubble graph was used to select articles that deserve to be read.ResultsThe top 3 authors were Lutz Bornmann, Yuh-Shan Ho, and Giovanni Abramo, with CJAL scores of 176.22, 176.02, and 112.06, respectively, from Germany, Italy, and Taiwan. Based on the weak dominance coefficient (AAC = 0.20 < 0.70), it is evident that the leading bibliometric author has no such significant power beyond the next 2 leading authors in IRAs. A trend analysis of the last 4 years was used to illustrate the 2 articles that deserve to be read.ConclusionThree leading authors were identified through a co-word analysis of bibliometrics. There was no evidence of an author who possessed a dominant position due to a lower AAC on the leading author. The CJAL score and the AAC can be applied to many bibliographical studies in the future rather than being limited to bibliometric studies that evaluate the leading authors in a field, as we did in this study.

Dataset Information

Understanding the contribution of UK public health research to clinical guidelines: a bibliometric analysis.

Publications

Understanding the contribution of UK public health research to clinical guidelines: a bibliometric analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets