IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v27y2018i3p270-282..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impacts of diabetes research from 31 European Countries in 2002 to 2013

Author

Listed:
  • Elena Pallari
  • Grant Lewison
  • Oriana Ciani
  • Rosanna Tarricone
  • Silvia Sommariva
  • Mursheda Begum
  • Richard Sullivan

Abstract

The evaluation of a country’s medical research outputs should include measures of their impact on medical practice, on health policy, and decision-making, as well as conventional citations in the serial literature. This study examined three measures of impact: geometric mean, arithmetic mean, and world scale mean, applied to one disease area, namely, diabetes, to investigate the amount of agreement between them in terms of the impacts of the research of different European countries. First, citations to diabetes research papers in the Web of Science from 31 European countries from 2002 to 2013 were analysed. Papers from Finland, Switzerland, Denmark, and the UK were the most cited by other papers on both geometric and arithmetic means, and in terms of their presence in the top 5% of papers with the most citations. Secondly, the references on 103 European diabetes clinical practice guidelines from 21 countries were analysed. Papers from The Netherlands, Finland, the UK, and Austria were the most cited in the clinical guidelines relative to the countries’ presence amongst diabetes research. Finally, an analysis of newspaper stories about non-communicable disease research from 22 European countries included 822 on diabetes research (9.6% of the total) and showed that the subject was of substantial interest. The countries whose papers were the most cited relative to their presence in the subject area were Finland, Norway, the UK, and Belgium, but those from Japan, China, and South Korea were not well cited. Different European countries scored highly on these three measures. Scandinavian countries and the UK appeared to perform strongly on all three, but Switzerland only on conventional citation counts. The increased emphasis placed on demonstration of the social and economic impacts stemming from research makes the methodologies described herein of particular value to future evaluations of medical research.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena Pallari & Grant Lewison & Oriana Ciani & Rosanna Tarricone & Silvia Sommariva & Mursheda Begum & Richard Sullivan, 2018. "The impacts of diabetes research from 31 European Countries in 2002 to 2013," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 270-282.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:27:y:2018:i:3:p:270-282.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvy006
    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. Sultana, Atia & Lewison, Grant & Pallari, Elena, 2019. "The evaluation of mental disorders research reported in British and Irish newspapers between 2002 and 2013, and a comparison with the relative disease burdens and with research outputs in the two coun," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(4), pages 419-426.

    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:27:y:2018:i:3:p:270-282.. 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.