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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thonon, Frédérique, Boulkedid, Rym, Delory, Tristan, Rousseau, Sophie, Saghatchian, Mahasti, van Harten, Wim, O’Neill, Claire, Alberti, Corinne
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