ArticleBritish journal of cancer2008
The impact of cancer research: how publications influence UK cancer clinical guidelines.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical analysis of drug treatment trends for coronary heart disease in China.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating cancer research impact: lessons and examples from existing reviews on approaches to research impact assessment.Health research policy and systems · 2021Pooled it
- Association of National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Clinical Trial Network Group Studies With Guideline Care and New Drug Indications.JAMA network open · 2019Trial
- Deep forecasting of translational impact in medical research.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- A characterization of professional media and its links to research.Scientometrics · 2019Article
- Does citation matter? Research citation in policy documents as an indicator of research impact - an Australian obesity policy case-study.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- Differential research impact in cancer practice guidelines' evidence base: lessons from ESMO, NICE and SIGN.ESMO open · 2018Article
- Impact of NIHR HTA Programme funded research on NICE clinical guidelines: a retrospective cohort.Health research policy and systems · 2015Article
- Funding and Performance on Clinical Guidelines: The Cases of Dementia and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Rand health quarterly · 2012Article
- Article
- Assessing the scientific research productivity of Puerto Rican cancer researchers: bibliometric analysis from the Science Citation Index.Puerto Rico health sciences journal · 2010Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There has been a substantially increased interest in biomedical research impact assessment over the past 5 years. This can be studied by a number of methods, but its influence on clinical guidelines must rank as one of the most important. In cancer, there are 43 UK guidelines (and associated Health Technology Assessments) published (up to October 2006) across three series, each of which has an evidence base in the form of references, many of which are papers in peer-reviewed journals. These have all been identified and analysed to determine their geographical provenance and type of research, in comparison with overall oncology research published in the peak years of guideline references (1999-2001). The UK papers were cited nearly three times as frequently as would have been expected from their presence in world oncology research (6.5%). Within the United Kingdom, Edinburgh and Glasgow stood out for their unexpectedly high contributions to the guidelines' scientific base. The cited papers from the United Kingdom acknowledged much more explicit funding from all sectors than did the UK cancer research papers at the same research level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.