Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27490373›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

Optimising Translational Research Opportunities: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Basic and Clinician Scientists' Perspectives of Factors Which Enable or Hinder Translational Research.

Nina Fudge, Euan Sadler, Helen R Fisher, John Maher, Charles D A Wolfe, Christopher McKevitt

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. A Survey Study of Roadblocks in Translational Science.Clinical and translational science · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Resources for oral health in Africa.Frontiers in oral health · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Development and application of the RaphaAmerican journal of translational research · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Nina FudgeDivision of Health and Social Care Research, Faculty of Life Science and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7161-4355
Euan SadlerCentre for Implementation Science, Department of Health Service and Population Research, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Helen R FisherDivision of Health and Social Care Research, Faculty of Life Science and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
John MaherDepartment of Research Oncology, King's College London and Guy's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Charles D A WolfeDivision of Health and Social Care Research, Faculty of Life Science and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Christopher McKevittDivision of Health and Social Care Research, Faculty of Life Science and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10184
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTranslational research is central to international health policy, research and funding initiatives. Despite increasing use of the term, the translation of basic science discoveries into clinical practice is not straightforward. This systematic search and narrative synthesis aimed to examine factors enabling or hindering translational research from the perspective of basic and clinician scientists, a key stakeholder group in translational research, and to draw policy-relevant implications for organisations seeking to optimise translational research opportunities. METHODS AND

resultsWe searched SCOPUS and Web of Science from inception until April 2015 for papers reporting scientists' views of the factors they perceive as enabling or hindering the conduct of translational research. We screened 8,295 papers from electronic database searches and 20 papers from hand searches and citation tracking, identifying 26 studies of qualitative, quantitative or mixed method designs. We used a narrative synthesis approach and identified the following themes: 1) differing concepts of translational research 2) research processes as a barrier to translational research; 3) perceived cultural divide between research and clinical care; 4) interdisciplinary collaboration as enabling translation research, but dependent on the quality of prior and current social relationships; 5) translational research as entrepreneurial science. Across all five themes, factors enabling or hindering translational research were largely shaped by wider social, organisational, and structural factors.

conclusionTo optimise translational research, policy could consider refining translational research models to better reflect scientists' experiences, fostering greater collaboration and buy in from all types of scientists. Organisations could foster cultural change, ensuring that organisational practices and systems keep pace with the change in knowledge production brought about by the translational research agenda.

Indexed as

Translational Research, BiomedicalCooperative BehaviorDatabases, FactualHealth PolicyPatient CareProfessional Role

Identifiers

PMID27490373
PMCPMC4973909

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.