Cargando…
Measuring the Outcome of Biomedical Research: A Systematic Literature Review
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4383328/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25837969 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122239 |
_version_ | 1782364711043465216 |
---|---|
author | Thonon, Frédérique Boulkedid, Rym Delory, Tristan Rousseau, Sophie Saghatchian, Mahasti van Harten, Wim O’Neill, Claire Alberti, Corinne |
author_facet | Thonon, Frédérique Boulkedid, Rym Delory, Tristan Rousseau, Sophie Saghatchian, Mahasti van Harten, Wim O’Neill, Claire Alberti, Corinne |
author_sort | Thonon, Frédérique |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4383328 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43833282015-04-09 Measuring the Outcome of Biomedical Research: A Systematic Literature Review Thonon, Frédérique Boulkedid, Rym Delory, Tristan Rousseau, Sophie Saghatchian, Mahasti van Harten, Wim O’Neill, Claire Alberti, Corinne PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2015-04-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4383328/ /pubmed/25837969 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122239 Text en © 2015 Thonon et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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 properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Thonon, Frédérique Boulkedid, Rym Delory, Tristan Rousseau, Sophie Saghatchian, Mahasti van Harten, Wim O’Neill, Claire Alberti, Corinne Measuring the Outcome of Biomedical Research: A Systematic Literature Review |
title | Measuring the Outcome of Biomedical Research: A Systematic Literature Review |
title_full | Measuring the Outcome of Biomedical Research: A Systematic Literature Review |
title_fullStr | Measuring the Outcome of Biomedical Research: A Systematic Literature Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Measuring the Outcome of Biomedical Research: A Systematic Literature Review |
title_short | Measuring the Outcome of Biomedical Research: A Systematic Literature Review |
title_sort | measuring the outcome of biomedical research: a systematic literature review |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4383328/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25837969 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122239 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT thononfrederique measuringtheoutcomeofbiomedicalresearchasystematicliteraturereview AT boulkedidrym measuringtheoutcomeofbiomedicalresearchasystematicliteraturereview AT delorytristan measuringtheoutcomeofbiomedicalresearchasystematicliteraturereview AT rousseausophie measuringtheoutcomeofbiomedicalresearchasystematicliteraturereview AT saghatchianmahasti measuringtheoutcomeofbiomedicalresearchasystematicliteraturereview AT vanhartenwim measuringtheoutcomeofbiomedicalresearchasystematicliteraturereview AT oneillclaire measuringtheoutcomeofbiomedicalresearchasystematicliteraturereview AT alberticorinne measuringtheoutcomeofbiomedicalresearchasystematicliteraturereview |