Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25552353›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2015

How long does biomedical research take? Studying the time taken between biomedical and health research and its translation into products, policy, and practice.

Stephen R Hanney, Sophie Castle-Clarke, Jonathan Grant, Susan Guthrie, Chris Henshall, Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz, Michele Pistollato, Alexandra Pollitt, Jon Sussex, Steven Wooding

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 106 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
106citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

106 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Is auditory neuropathy an appropriate term? A systematic literature review on its aetiology and pathogenesis.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Making a difference: describing and evaluating the impact of the Dutch CardioVascular Alliance.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

46 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Stephen R HanneyHealth Economics Research Group, Brunel University London, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK. stephen.hanney@brunel.ac.uk.
Sophie Castle-Clarke
Jonathan Grant
Susan Guthrie
Chris Henshall
Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz
Michele Pistollato
Alexandra Pollitt
Jon Sussex
Steven Wooding

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K014773/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe time taken, or 'time lags', between biomedical/health research and its translation into health improvements is receiving growing attention. Reducing time lags should increase rates of return to such research. However, ways to measure time lags are under-developed, with little attention on where time lags arise within overall timelines. The process marker model has been proposed as a better way forward than the current focus on an increasingly complex series of translation 'gaps'. Starting from that model, we aimed to develop better methods to measure and understand time lags and develop ways to identify policy options and produce recommendations for future studies.

methodsFollowing reviews of the literature on time lags and of relevant policy documents, we developed a new approach to conduct case studies of time lags. We built on the process marker model, including developing a matrix with a series of overlapping tracks to allow us to present and measure elements within any overall time lag. We identified a reduced number of key markers or calibration points and tested our new approach in seven case studies of research leading to interventions in cardiovascular disease and mental health. Finally, we analysed the data to address our study's key aims.

resultsThe literature review illustrated the lack of agreement on starting points for measuring time lags. We mapped points from policy documents onto our matrix and thus highlighted key areas of concern, for example around delays before new therapies become widely available. Our seven completed case studies demonstrate we have made considerable progress in developing methods to measure and understand time lags. The matrix of overlapping tracks of activity in the research and implementation processes facilitated analysis of time lags along each track, and at the cross-over points where the next track started. We identified some factors that speed up translation through the actions of companies, researchers, funders, policymakers, and regulators. Recommendations for further work are built on progress made, limitations identified and revised terminology.

conclusionsOur advances identify complexities, provide a firm basis for further methodological work along and between tracks, and begin to indicate potential ways of reducing lags.

Indexed as

Time FactorsBiomedical ResearchCase-Control StudiesEvaluation Studies as TopicHumansModels, TheoreticalReview Literature as TopicTranslational Research, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID25552353
PMCPMC4297458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.