13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Measuring the Outcome of Biomedical Research: A Systematic Literature Review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          There is an increasing need to evaluate the production and impact of medical research produced by institutions. Many indicators exist, yet we do not have enough information about their relevance. The objective of this systematic review was (1) to identify all the indicators that could be used to measure the output and outcome of medical research carried out in institutions and (2) enlist their methodology, use, positive and negative points.

          Methodology

          We have searched 3 databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science) using the following keywords: [Research outcome* OR research output* OR bibliometric* OR scientometric* OR scientific production] AND [indicator* OR index* OR evaluation OR metrics]. We included articles presenting, discussing or evaluating indicators measuring the scientific production of an institution. The search was conducted by two independent authors using a standardised data extraction form. For each indicator we extracted its definition, calculation, its rationale and its positive and negative points. In order to reduce bias, data extraction and analysis was performed by two independent authors.

          Findings

          We included 76 articles. A total of 57 indicators were identified. We have classified those indicators into 6 categories: 9 indicators of research activity, 24 indicators of scientific production and impact, 5 indicators of collaboration, 7 indicators of industrial production, 4 indicators of dissemination, 8 indicators of health service impact. The most widely discussed and described is the h-index with 31 articles discussing it.

          Discussion

          The majority of indicators found are bibliometric indicators of scientific production and impact. Several indicators have been developed to improve the h-index. This indicator has also inspired the creation of two indicators to measure industrial production and collaboration. Several articles propose indicators measuring research impact without detailing a methodology for calculating them. Many bibliometric indicators identified have been created but have not been used or further discussed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Bibliometric methods: pitfalls and possibilities.

          Bibliometric studies are increasingly being used for research assessment. Bibliometric indicators are strongly methodology-dependent but for all of them, various types of data normalization are an indispensable requirement. Bibliometric studies have many pitfalls; technical skill, critical sense and a precise knowledge about the examined scientific domain are required to carry out and interpret bibliometric investigations correctly.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Does the h-index have predictive power?

            Bibliometric measures of individual scientific achievement are of particular interest if they can be used to predict future achievement. Here we report results of an empirical study of the predictive power of the h-index compared to other indicators. Our findings indicate that the h-index is better than other indicators considered (total citation count, citations per paper, and total paper count) in predicting future scientific achievement. We discuss reasons for the superiority of the h-index.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Measuring the impact of health research.

              Measuring the decision-making impact of applied health research should constitute a core function for many research funders and research organizations. Different target audiences warrant different measures of impact. The target audiences for applied health research include the general public, patients (and their families), clinicians, managers (in hospitals, regional health authorities and health plans), research and development officers (in biotechnology firms) and public policy-makers (i.e. elected officials, political staff and civil servants). Making meaningful assessments within peer groups that fund or produce similar types of research knowledge for similar types of target audiences makes more sense than a one-size-fits-all approach to impact assessment. User-pull and interactive measures of impact (i.e. measures of cultural shifts that would facilitate the on-going use of research knowledge to inform decision-making) can supplement more traditional producer-push measures that assess researchers' active efforts to inform decision-making and the outcome of these efforts. Cultural shifts may include the creation of a research-attuned culture among decision-makers and a decision-relevant culture among researchers. Moving beyond whether research was used to examine how it was used is also important. Research knowledge may be used in instrumental, conceptual or symbolic ways. These actions, coupled with on-going refinements to the proposed assessment tool as research evidence evolves, would take us a long way towards assessment and accountability in the health sector.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                2 April 2015
                2015
                : 10
                : 4
                : e0122239
                Affiliations
                [1 ]European and International Affairs Unit, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
                [2 ]AP-HP, Hôpital Robert Debré, Unité d’épidémiologie clinique, Paris, France
                [3 ]Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, UMR-S 1123 and CIC-EC 1426, ECEVE, Paris, France
                [4 ]INSERM, U 1123 and CIC-EC 1426, ECEVE, Paris, France
                [5 ]AP-HP, Hôpital Bichat, Département d’Epidémiologie et de recherche clinique, Paris, France
                [6 ]Direction de la Recherche Clinique, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
                [7 ]Centre Hygée, Department of Public Health, Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institute, CIC-EC 3 Inserm, IFR 143, Saint-Etienne, France
                [8 ]The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                Stanford University, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: FT RB MS WvH CA. Performed the experiments: FT RB TD SR CO. Analyzed the data: FT RB TD SR CO. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: FT RB CA. Wrote the paper: FT RB TD SR MS WvH CO CA.

                Article
                PONE-D-14-35793
                10.1371/journal.pone.0122239
                4383328
                25837969
                2d20ad62-1b32-4198-9e3f-8d7e1f16b1dd
                Copyright @ 2015

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

                History
                : 11 August 2014
                : 10 February 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 3, Pages: 14
                Funding
                This study was funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7) under grant agreement n° 260791 for the project entitled 'EurocanPlatform'. The URL of the funders is http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm and, URL of the FP7 is http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm and the URL of the EurocanPltaform project is http://eurocanplatform.eu. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manual.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article