The impact of cancer research: how publications influence UK cancer clinical guidelines
There has been a substantially increased interest in biomedical research impact assessment over the past 5 years. This can be studied by a number of methods, but its influence on clinical guidelines must rank as one of the most important. In cancer, there are 43 UK guidelines (and associated Health...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of cancer 2008-06, Vol.98 (12), p.1944-1950 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1950 |
---|---|
container_issue | 12 |
container_start_page | 1944 |
container_title | British journal of cancer |
container_volume | 98 |
creator | Lewison, G Sullivan, R |
description | There has been a substantially increased interest in biomedical research impact assessment over the past 5 years. This can be studied by a number of methods, but its influence on clinical guidelines must rank as one of the most important. In cancer, there are 43 UK guidelines (and associated Health Technology Assessments) published (up to October 2006) across three series, each of which has an evidence base in the form of references, many of which are papers in peer-reviewed journals. These have all been identified and analysed to determine their geographical provenance and type of research, in comparison with overall oncology research published in the peak years of guideline references (1999–2001). The UK papers were cited nearly three times as frequently as would have been expected from their presence in world oncology research (6.5%). Within the United Kingdom, Edinburgh and Glasgow stood out for their unexpectedly high contributions to the guidelines' scientific base. The cited papers from the United Kingdom acknowledged much more explicit funding from all sectors than did the UK cancer research papers at the same research level. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604405 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2441955</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1492915061</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c485t-f0cb6bdfa26cf160ac3a5fad5c6c31dc7c27a6e0f898e515e8d7bc219128257c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc2LFDEQxYMo7rh69ShB0FvPVtKddNqDIItfuOBlF48hXZ3MpOlJxqRb8b83Mu2uCp6Son559VKPkKcMtgxqdZHHbT_iVkpoGhD3yIaJmldM8fY-2QBAW0HH4Yw8ynksZQeqfUjOmBKcleuGfLneW-oPR4MzjY6iCWgTTTZbk3D_iu7jd3pc-smjmX0MmfrgpsUWit58-o3j5EMBJrpb_GBLYfNj8sCZKdsn63lObt69vb78UF19fv_x8s1VhY0Sc-UAe9kPznCJjkkwWBvhzCBQYs0GbJG3RlpwqlNWMGHV0PbIWce44qLF-py8PukWkwc7oA1zMpM-Jn8w6YeOxuu_O8Hv9S5-07xpWCdEEXi5CqT4dbF51gef0U6TCTYuWbdMCqkaVcDn_4BjXFIon9O8BmAKJBRoe4IwxZyTdbdOGOhfgek86hKYXgMrD5796f8OXxMqwIsVMLms2KWycp9vOQ4CmGh44S5OXC6tsLPpzt5_Rv8EYtmwaw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>230018060</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The impact of cancer research: how publications influence UK cancer clinical guidelines</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Nature Journals Online</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Lewison, G ; Sullivan, R</creator><creatorcontrib>Lewison, G ; Sullivan, R</creatorcontrib><description>There has been a substantially increased interest in biomedical research impact assessment over the past 5 years. This can be studied by a number of methods, but its influence on clinical guidelines must rank as one of the most important. In cancer, there are 43 UK guidelines (and associated Health Technology Assessments) published (up to October 2006) across three series, each of which has an evidence base in the form of references, many of which are papers in peer-reviewed journals. These have all been identified and analysed to determine their geographical provenance and type of research, in comparison with overall oncology research published in the peak years of guideline references (1999–2001). The UK papers were cited nearly three times as frequently as would have been expected from their presence in world oncology research (6.5%). Within the United Kingdom, Edinburgh and Glasgow stood out for their unexpectedly high contributions to the guidelines' scientific base. The cited papers from the United Kingdom acknowledged much more explicit funding from all sectors than did the UK cancer research papers at the same research level.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-0920</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-1827</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604405</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18521087</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJCAAI</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Biomedical Research ; Biomedicine ; Cancer Research ; Clinical practice guidelines ; Clinical Study ; Drug Resistance ; Epidemiology ; Funding ; Humans ; Medical research ; Medical sciences ; Molecular Medicine ; Neoplasms - therapy ; Oncology ; Political science ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Publishing ; Social policy ; Tumors ; United Kingdom</subject><ispartof>British journal of cancer, 2008-06, Vol.98 (12), p.1944-1950</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2008</rights><rights>2008 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Nature Publishing Group Jun 17, 2008</rights><rights>Copyright © 2008 Cancer Research UK 2008 Cancer Research UK</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c485t-f0cb6bdfa26cf160ac3a5fad5c6c31dc7c27a6e0f898e515e8d7bc219128257c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c485t-f0cb6bdfa26cf160ac3a5fad5c6c31dc7c27a6e0f898e515e8d7bc219128257c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2441955/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2441955/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=20501542$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18521087$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lewison, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sullivan, R</creatorcontrib><title>The impact of cancer research: how publications influence UK cancer clinical guidelines</title><title>British journal of cancer</title><addtitle>Br J Cancer</addtitle><addtitle>Br J Cancer</addtitle><description>There has been a substantially increased interest in biomedical research impact assessment over the past 5 years. This can be studied by a number of methods, but its influence on clinical guidelines must rank as one of the most important. In cancer, there are 43 UK guidelines (and associated Health Technology Assessments) published (up to October 2006) across three series, each of which has an evidence base in the form of references, many of which are papers in peer-reviewed journals. These have all been identified and analysed to determine their geographical provenance and type of research, in comparison with overall oncology research published in the peak years of guideline references (1999–2001). The UK papers were cited nearly three times as frequently as would have been expected from their presence in world oncology research (6.5%). Within the United Kingdom, Edinburgh and Glasgow stood out for their unexpectedly high contributions to the guidelines' scientific base. The cited papers from the United Kingdom acknowledged much more explicit funding from all sectors than did the UK cancer research papers at the same research level.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biomedical Research</subject><subject>Biomedicine</subject><subject>Cancer Research</subject><subject>Clinical practice guidelines</subject><subject>Clinical Study</subject><subject>Drug Resistance</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Funding</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Molecular Medicine</subject><subject>Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Political science</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Publishing</subject><subject>Social policy</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><issn>0007-0920</issn><issn>1532-1827</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc2LFDEQxYMo7rh69ShB0FvPVtKddNqDIItfuOBlF48hXZ3MpOlJxqRb8b83Mu2uCp6Son559VKPkKcMtgxqdZHHbT_iVkpoGhD3yIaJmldM8fY-2QBAW0HH4Yw8ynksZQeqfUjOmBKcleuGfLneW-oPR4MzjY6iCWgTTTZbk3D_iu7jd3pc-smjmX0MmfrgpsUWit58-o3j5EMBJrpb_GBLYfNj8sCZKdsn63lObt69vb78UF19fv_x8s1VhY0Sc-UAe9kPznCJjkkwWBvhzCBQYs0GbJG3RlpwqlNWMGHV0PbIWce44qLF-py8PukWkwc7oA1zMpM-Jn8w6YeOxuu_O8Hv9S5-07xpWCdEEXi5CqT4dbF51gef0U6TCTYuWbdMCqkaVcDn_4BjXFIon9O8BmAKJBRoe4IwxZyTdbdOGOhfgek86hKYXgMrD5796f8OXxMqwIsVMLms2KWycp9vOQ4CmGh44S5OXC6tsLPpzt5_Rv8EYtmwaw</recordid><startdate>20080617</startdate><enddate>20080617</enddate><creator>Lewison, G</creator><creator>Sullivan, R</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080617</creationdate><title>The impact of cancer research: how publications influence UK cancer clinical guidelines</title><author>Lewison, G ; Sullivan, R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c485t-f0cb6bdfa26cf160ac3a5fad5c6c31dc7c27a6e0f898e515e8d7bc219128257c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biomedical Research</topic><topic>Biomedicine</topic><topic>Cancer Research</topic><topic>Clinical practice guidelines</topic><topic>Clinical Study</topic><topic>Drug Resistance</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Funding</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Molecular Medicine</topic><topic>Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Political science</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Publishing</topic><topic>Social policy</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lewison, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sullivan, R</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA/Free Journals</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>British journal of cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lewison, G</au><au>Sullivan, R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The impact of cancer research: how publications influence UK cancer clinical guidelines</atitle><jtitle>British journal of cancer</jtitle><stitle>Br J Cancer</stitle><addtitle>Br J Cancer</addtitle><date>2008-06-17</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>98</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>1944</spage><epage>1950</epage><pages>1944-1950</pages><issn>0007-0920</issn><eissn>1532-1827</eissn><coden>BJCAAI</coden><abstract>There has been a substantially increased interest in biomedical research impact assessment over the past 5 years. This can be studied by a number of methods, but its influence on clinical guidelines must rank as one of the most important. In cancer, there are 43 UK guidelines (and associated Health Technology Assessments) published (up to October 2006) across three series, each of which has an evidence base in the form of references, many of which are papers in peer-reviewed journals. These have all been identified and analysed to determine their geographical provenance and type of research, in comparison with overall oncology research published in the peak years of guideline references (1999–2001). The UK papers were cited nearly three times as frequently as would have been expected from their presence in world oncology research (6.5%). Within the United Kingdom, Edinburgh and Glasgow stood out for their unexpectedly high contributions to the guidelines' scientific base. The cited papers from the United Kingdom acknowledged much more explicit funding from all sectors than did the UK cancer research papers at the same research level.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>18521087</pmid><doi>10.1038/sj.bjc.6604405</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0007-0920 |
ispartof | British journal of cancer, 2008-06, Vol.98 (12), p.1944-1950 |
issn | 0007-0920 1532-1827 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2441955 |
source | MEDLINE; Nature Journals Online; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Biological and medical sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical Research Biomedicine Cancer Research Clinical practice guidelines Clinical Study Drug Resistance Epidemiology Funding Humans Medical research Medical sciences Molecular Medicine Neoplasms - therapy Oncology Political science Practice Guidelines as Topic Publishing Social policy Tumors United Kingdom |
title | The impact of cancer research: how publications influence UK cancer clinical guidelines |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T07%3A35%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20impact%20of%20cancer%20research:%20how%20publications%20influence%20UK%20cancer%20clinical%20guidelines&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20cancer&rft.au=Lewison,%20G&rft.date=2008-06-17&rft.volume=98&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1944&rft.epage=1950&rft.pages=1944-1950&rft.issn=0007-0920&rft.eissn=1532-1827&rft.coden=BJCAAI&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604405&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1492915061%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=230018060&rft_id=info:pmid/18521087&rfr_iscdi=true |