Impact Of Medical Research Research Articles

Achieving research impact in medical research through collaboration across organizational boundaries: Insights from a mixed methods study in the Netherlands

BackgroundIn the Netherlands, university medical centres (UMCs) bear primary responsibility for conducting medical research and delivering highly specialized care. The TopCare program was a policy experiment lasting 4 years in which three non-academic hospitals received funding from the Dutch Ministry of Health to also conduct medical research and deliver highly specialized care in specific domains. This study investigates research collaboration outcomes for all Dutch UMCs and non-academic hospitals in general and, more specifically, for the domains in the non-academic hospitals participating in the TopCare program. Additionally, it explores the organizational boundary work employed by these hospitals to foster productive research collaborations.MethodsA mixed method research design was employed combining quantitative bibliometric analysis of publications and citations across all Dutch UMCs and non-academic hospitals and the TopCare domains with geographical distances, document analysis and ethnographic interviews with actors in the TopCare program.ResultsQuantitative analysis shows that, over the period of study, international collaboration increased among all hospitals while national collaboration and single institution research declined slightly. Collaborative efforts correlated with higher impact scores, and international collaboration scored higher than national collaboration. A total of 60% of all non-academic hospitals’ publications were produced in collaboration with UMCs, whereas almost 30% of the UMCs’ publications were the result of such collaboration. Non-academic hospitals showed a higher rate of collaboration with the UMC that was nearest geographically, whereas TopCare hospitals prioritized expertise over geographical proximity within their specialized domains. Boundary work mechanisms adopted by TopCare hospitals included aligning research activities with organizational mindset (identity), bolstering research infrastructure (competence) and finding and mobilizing strategic partnerships with academic partners (power). These efforts aimed to establish credibility and attractiveness as collaboration partners.ConclusionsResearch collaboration between non-academic hospitals and UMCs, particularly where this also involves international collaboration, pays off in terms of publications and impact. The TopCare hospitals used the program’s resources to perform boundary work aimed at becoming an attractive and credible collaboration partner for academia. Local factors such as research history, strategic domain focus, in-house expertise, patient flows, infrastructure and network relationships influenced collaboration dynamics within TopCare hospitals and between them and UMCs.

Mapping the landscape of medical research in the Arab world countries: A comprehensive bibliometric analysis.

To describe the productivity, performance, and impact of medical research in the Arab world countries. We carried out a bibliometric analysis using Clarivate Analytics databases from January 2017 to March 2023. We reported research productivity, national and international research collaboration patterns, impact of Arab medical research output compared to the global average, top medical journals publishing Arab-affiliated research, and performance of the most productive Arab institutions. The Arab world contributed 2.72% to global medical research publication, with a citation impact of 11.98 compared to the global impact of 12.02. Qatar, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia led medical research publications per million population among Arab countries, ranking 26th, 36th, and 37th globally. Medical research publications increased by 87% annually from 2017-2022, with 70% of research originating from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. National collaborations accounted for 15% of Arab world publications, while international collaborations represented 66%. The median impact factor across the top 20 medical journals with Arab-affiliated authors was 5.14, with 50% being quartile one journals. The top 10 Arab-origin medical journals had a median impact factor of 3.13. Approximately 80% of the top 20 Arab institutions were academic, with a median publication count of 3,162.5 and a median citation impact of 14.5. The study provides insights into the state of medical research in the Arab countries, indicating room for improvement in the region's medical research.

Deep forecasting of translational impact in medical research

SummaryThe value of biomedical research—a $1.7 trillion annual investment—is ultimately determined by its downstream, real-world impact, whose predictability from simple citation metrics remains unquantified. Here we sought to determine the comparative predictability of future real-world translation—as indexed by inclusion in patents, guidelines, or policy documents—from complex models of title/abstract-level content versus citations and metadata alone. We quantify predictive performance out of sample, ahead of time, across major domains, using the entire corpus of biomedical research captured by Microsoft Academic Graph from 1990–2019, encompassing 43.3 million papers. We show that citations are only moderately predictive of translational impact. In contrast, high-dimensional models of titles, abstracts, and metadata exhibit high fidelity (area under the receiver operating curve [AUROC] > 0.9), generalize across time and domain, and transfer to recognizing papers of Nobel laureates. We argue that content-based impact models are superior to conventional, citation-based measures and sustain a stronger evidence-based claim to the objective measurement of translational potential.

Bibliometrics to assess the productivity and impact of medical research

Background: Bibliometrics is the use of statistical and mathematical analysis to assess research production and quality. These metrics provide important insights into the quality and impact of research by applying standardised metrics. However, there are inherent limitations in their application. Objective: We aimed to review existing bibliometric indices and assess their comparative utility in the assessment of medical researchers. We specifically aimed to evaluate the utility of the h-index in identifying young or developing medical researchers with future research potential. Method: We conducted a focussed literature review on commonly used bibliometrics. To explore the utility of these metrics we then used them to evaluate a sample of researchers from a South African medical school faculty. Researchers were ranked with the following metrics: number of publications; h-index; citations per paper; citations per paper per year; and m-index. The h-index, citations and publication counts were drawn from ResearchGate and, if not available, from Google Scholar. The top 20 researchers, based on publication count, were then analysed further. Results: We identified 145 researchers for analysis of which 37 were excluded due to an inability to obtain additional information. Higher time-dependent metrics (publication count, citation count, h-index) were directly proportional to years since first publication. Indices that corrected for time, such as the m-index, provided more insight and better discrimination in identifying younger researchers with greater research potential. Conclusion: Bibliometrics have utility as part of the assessment of academic output but may be subject to time-dependent bias. Research quality is best measured using the h-index, g-index and m-index. The h-index is limited by being time dependent and field specific and overlooks highly cited papers. Bibliometrics that account for time, such as the m-index, should be considered in the early identification of young researchers, ideally accompanied by critical peer review.

Current Issues with Covariate Adjustment in the Analysis of Data from Randomized Controlled Trials

Covariate adjustment helps to minimize bias by eliminating the influence of one variable on another and generally improves precision of estimators in comparative studies. However, despite considerable discussion in the literature on the topic, there is continued controversy and misunderstanding about its valid use and impact in medical research. We review current issues and suggest steps to be taken in the course of the design, analysis, and reporting of studies to further heighten awareness of the problem particularly among nonstatisticians. It is reemphasized that prespecification of the variables of interest and parsimony of the analytical models are essential elements for valid use and interpretation of results of analysis involving covariates.

Impact of health science research on the Spanish health system, based on bibliometric and healthcare indicators

The present study aimed to determine the possible impact of medical research on the Spanish health system. To this end, an analysis was conducted of Spanish researchers’ scientific production, measured in terms of the publications cited in MEDLINE, along with a series of economic, demographic and socio-sanitary data such as the R&D resources allocated to medical science, the actual population during the period studied mortality, morbidity and drug spending. The results showed increases in all the variables studied, identified the areas most intensely researched and defined the relationship between this information and the chief causes of mortality, morbidity and drug spending.

Measuring the Impact of Medical Research: Moving From Outputs to Outcomes

Measuring the Impact of Medical Research: Moving From Outputs to Outcomes