Beyond outputs: new measures of biomedical research impact

Biomedical research evaluation has traditionally been based on analysis of outputs and their citations by other papers. However we should try to map the routes by which research actually improves patient care and reduces illness, and develop indicators for them. We must allow for the lengthy time‐scales involved and the importance of researchers being physically close to healthcare professionals, whose practice can be improved through international and governmental regulations and through approved guidelines. Each of these will depend on a body of research evidence. We must also evaluate the effects of research on policy makers and the public, who often learn about it through the World Wide Web and through the mass media, particularly newspapers. The latter provide a major bibliometric resource but one that needs to be tapped in individual countries using common standards in order to provide internationally‐comparable indicators.

[1]  Michael Gough Estimating Cancer mortality , 1989 .

[2]  Jennifer Jones Sedentary “tweens” at higher risk for heart disease , 2002 .

[3]  Alexandru T. Balaban How should citations to articles in high- and low-impact journals be evaluated, or what is a citation worth? , 2005, Scientometrics.

[4]  Dianne Dumanoski,et al.  Our stolen future: are we threatening our fertility, intelligence, and survival? : a scientific detective story , 1998 .

[5]  Paul Bourke,et al.  Publication types, citation rates and evaluation , 1996, Scientometrics.

[6]  Grant Lewison Researchers" and users" perceptions of the relative standing of biomedical papers in different journals , 2004, Scientometrics.

[7]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Assessment of Flemish R&D in the field of information technology: A bibliometric evaluation based on publication and patent data, combined with OECD research input statistics , 1998 .

[8]  Robert Cottrell,et al.  Evaluating “payback” on biomedical research from papers cited in clinical guidelines: applied bibliometric study , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  Wayne Kondro Canadian group calls for more environmental health studies , 2000, The Lancet.

[10]  C. O'B. ...as minister apologizes for 'misleading' , 1996, Nature.

[11]  Elizabeth Finkel,et al.  Engineered Mouse Virus Spurs Bioweapon Fears , 2001, Science.

[12]  Z Kmietowicz NICE's appraisal procedures attacked , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  G. Lewison Gastroenterology research in the United Kingdom: funding sources and impact , 1998, Gut.

[14]  D Normile,et al.  Asia Gets a Taste of Genetic Food Fights , 2000, Science.

[15]  David M. Konisky Comparative Risk Projects: A Methodology for Cross-Project Analysis of Human Health Risk Rankings , 1999 .

[16]  Bebe Loff MELBOURNE Informed consent for tissue retention discussed in Australia , 2000, The Lancet.

[17]  C O'Brien Britain launches two studies of 'Gulf War syndrome'...as minister apologizes for 'misleading'. , 1996, Nature.

[18]  Grant Lewison,et al.  From biomedical research to health improvement , 2002, Scientometrics.

[19]  Sally Lehrman Ballot urged on ageing centre plans , 1995, Nature.

[20]  Diane H. Sonnenwald,et al.  Citation ranking versus peer evaluation of senior faculty research performance: a case study of Kurdish scholarship , 2000 .

[21]  McGinnis Jm,et al.  Actual causes of death in the United States. , 1993 .

[22]  Karen Birchard New European Commissioner for food safety stamps his authority , 1999, The Lancet.

[23]  P Anderson,et al.  Another media scare about MMR vaccine hits Britain , 1999, BMJ.

[24]  R. Doll,et al.  The causes of cancer: quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today. , 1981, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[25]  M. Wells,et al.  The Alder Hey affair: implications for pathology practice. , 2001, Journal of clinical pathology.