ArticleRand health quarterly2011
Project Retrosight: Understanding the Returns from Cardiovascular and Stroke Research: The Policy Report.
Article in Rand health quarterly, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the connection between EU-funded research and methodological approaches: insights from a retrospective analysis.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Article
- An assessment of the performance of the national health research system in Mauritius.BMC health services research · 2023Review
- Alzheimer's Disease, and Breast and Prostate Cancer Research: Translational Failures and the Importance to Monitor Outputs and Impact of Funded Research.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Review
- Tracing Long-Term Outcomes of Basic Research Using Citation Networks.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2020Article
- ISRIA statement: ten-point guidelines for an effective process of research impact assessment.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- Evidence appraisal: a scoping review, conceptual framework, and research agenda.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017Article
- Comparing research investment to United Kingdom institutions and published outputs for tuberculosis, HIV and malaria: a systematic analysis across 1997-2013.Health research policy and systems · 2015Article
- Can animal data translate to innovations necessary for a new era of patient-centred and individualised healthcare? Bias in preclinical animal research.BMC medical ethics · 2015Article
- Article
- Does health intervention research have real world policy and practice impacts: testing a new impact assessment tool.Health research policy and systems · 2015Article
- Estimating the returns to UK publicly funded cancer-related research in terms of the net value of improved health outcomes.BMC medicine · 2014Article
- Understanding factors associated with the translation of cardiovascular research: a multinational case study approach.Implementation science : IS · 2014Article
- Investigating Time Lags and Attribution in the Translation of Cancer Research: A Case Study Approach.Rand health quarterly · 2014Article
- How much are we spending? The estimation of research expenditures on cardiovascular disease in Canada.BMC health services research · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This project explores the impacts arising from cardiovascular and stroke research funded 15-20 years ago and attempts to draw out aspects of the research, researcher or environment that are associated with high or low impact. The project is a case study-based review of 29 cardiovascular and stroke research grants, funded in Australia, Canada and UK between 1989 and 1993. The case studies focused on the individual grants but considered the development of the investigators and ideas involved in the research projects from initiation to the present day. Grants were selected through a stratified random selection approach that aimed to include both high- and low-impact grants. The key messages are as follows: 1) The cases reveal that a large and diverse range of impacts arose from the 29 grants studied. 2) There are variations between the impacts derived from basic biomedical and clinical research. 3) There is no correlation between knowledge production and wider impacts 4) The majority of economic impacts identified come from a minority of projects. 5) We identified factors that appear to be associated with high and low impact. This article presents the key observations of the study and an overview of the methods involved. It has been written for funders of biomedical and health research and health services, health researchers, and policy makers in those fields. It will also be of interest to those involved in research and impact evaluation.
Identifiers
28083172PMC4945223What 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.