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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:British journal of cancer 2008-06, Vol.98 (12), p.1944-1950
Hauptverfasser: Lewison, G, Sullivan, R
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&amp;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 &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; 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