Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16037452›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2005

Comparison of amount of biomedical research originating from the European Union and the United States.

Elpidoforos S Soteriades, Matthew E Falagas

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Stability and change in public health studies in Colombia and Mexico: an exploratory approach based on co-word analysis.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2018
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elpidoforos S SoteriadesDepartment of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Matthew E Falagas
Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine and compare the research productivity of the European Union, the four "candidate" countries (those currently waiting to join the EU), and the United States in several fields of biomedical sciences.

designA retrospective observational study-bibliometric analysis. DATA SOURCES: Manuscripts published by authors from each country separately and from each group of countries for the period 1994 to 2004 and included in the Essential Science Indicators database of the Institute of Scientific Information.

main outcome measuresNumber of published articles and number of citations, adjusted for gross domestic product and population size.

results1,485,749 articles were published by authors from the EU compared with 1,356,805 from the US. The research productivity of the first 15 countries to join the EU, adjusted for population, was lower (76%) than that of the US-and even lower (66%) when the 10 newest EU countries were included in the analysis.

conclusionThe newest EU members and the EU candidate countries need further help and resources to increase their productivity, thereby improving the productivity of the EU as a whole.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchEuropean UnionPublishingRetrospective StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID16037452
PMCPMC1179763
OpenAlexW1990072335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.