Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27347636›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016

How efficient is translational research in radiation oncology? The example of a large Dutch academic radiation oncology department.

Maria Jacobs, Liesbeth Boersma, Frits V Merode, Andre Dekker, Frank Verhaegen, Luc Linden, Philippe Lambin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Why should radiation oncology do translational research? [corrected].Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology
    Review
  5. Article
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

7 authors.

Maria Jacobs1 MAASTRO clinic, Department of Radiation Oncology MAASTRO; CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Liesbeth Boersma2 MAASTRO clinic, Department of Radiation Oncology; GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Frits V Merode3 Executive Board, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Andre Dekker2 MAASTRO clinic, Department of Radiation Oncology; GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Frank Verhaegen2 MAASTRO clinic, Department of Radiation Oncology; GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Luc Linden2 MAASTRO clinic, Department of Radiation Oncology; GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Philippe Lambin2 MAASTRO clinic, Department of Radiation Oncology; GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objective: To study the efficiency of research implementation in a large radiotherapy institute, in either an internal review board-approved clinical trial or clinical routine.

methods: Scientific publications of the institute were listed. We asked clinicians from tumour expert groups whether the study had been implemented yet in a clinical trial or in clinical practice and which facilitators or barriers were relevant. An independent investigator verified all results. We calculated the implementation rates and the frequency of mentioned facilitators and barriers.

results: Resident researchers had published 234 studies over the past 4 years. Overall, 70/234 (30%) technical or preclinical studies were tested or implemented in a clinical environment in either trials or routine. In total, 45/234 (19%) studies were routinely implemented; in the 61 clinical studies, this percentage was higher: 38% (23/61). The main facilitator was the level of evidence and the main barriers were workload and high complexity.

conclusion: We were able to calculate the implementation ratio of published research into clinical practice and set benchmark figures for other radiotherapy clinics. Level of evidence was an important facilitator, while workload and high complexity of the new procedures were important barriers for implementation. Recent articles suggest that academic entrepreneurship will facilitate this process further. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: This study is the first of its kind calculating implementation rates of published studies in the clinical environment and can contribute to the efficiency of translational research in radiotherapy. We propose to use this metric as a quality indicator to evaluate academic departments.

Identifiers

PMID27347636
PMCPMC5124885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.