IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v8y1999i1p33-38.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the outcomes of biomedical research on healthcare

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan Grant

Abstract

Scientific funding organisations are increasingly being asked to justify their expenditure. For biomedical agencies this ultimately means demonstrating an improvement in healthcare. However, this is particularly problematic because of the complex relationship between research and its incorporation into new treatments. Using clinical guidelines, a new method to follow and quantify the progress of knowledge from biomedical research into clinical practice is proposed. As a pilot study, the bibliographic details of the evidence cited on three clinical guidelines were collated. These references were then standardised and the papers located in various libraries. The identities of the funding bodies supporting these papers were determined. The study demonstrated that the scientific basis of clinical guidelines may be examined using bibliometric techniques of funding source data. This provides a way for funding organisations to measure the impact or output of their funded research on effective, evidence-based medicine. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan Grant, 1999. "Evaluating the outcomes of biomedical research on healthcare," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 33-38, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:8:y:1999:i:1:p:33-38
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154499781777658
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dongyu Zang & Chunli Liu, 2023. "Exploring the clinical translation intensity of papers published by the world’s top scientists in basic medicine," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2371-2416, April.
    2. Magnus Eriksson & Annika Billhult & Tommy Billhult & Elena Pallari & Grant Lewison, 2020. "A new database of the references on international clinical practice guidelines: a facility for the evaluation of clinical research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1221-1235, February.
    3. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 935-950.
    4. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha & Mahshid Abdoli, 2017. "Is medical research informing professional practice more highly cited? Evidence from AHFS DI Essentials in drugs.com," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 509-527, July.
    5. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Werner Marx, 2016. "Policy documents as sources for measuring societal impact: how often is climate change research mentioned in policy-related documents?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1477-1495, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:8:y:1999:i:1:p:33-38. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.