ArticleRand health quarterly2014
Investigating Time Lags and Attribution in the Translation of Cancer Research: A Case Study Approach.
Article in Rand health quarterly, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating cancer research impact: lessons and examples from existing reviews on approaches to research impact assessment.Health research policy and systems · 2021Pooled it
- The Cultural Politics of 'Implementation Science'.The Journal of medical humanities · 2020Article
- Evidencing the impact of cancer trials: insights from the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework.Trials · 2020Article
- The rise of rapid implementation: a worked example of solving an existing problem with a new method by combining concept analysis with a systematic integrative review.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Estimating the returns to United Kingdom publicly funded musculoskeletal disease research in terms of net value of improved health outcomes.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- Impact of Health Research Systems on Under-5 Mortality Rate: A Trend Analysis.International journal of health policy and management · 2017Article
- Estimating the returns to UK publicly funded cancer-related research in terms of the net value of improved health outcomes.BMC medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In 2012, RAND Europe and the Health Economics Research Group (Brunel University) were commissioned by the Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research and the Academy of Medical Science to conduct a study of the returns to the public/charitable investment in cancer-related research. This study built on previous work published in the 2008 "What's it worth?" report that estimated the economic returns to medical research in terms of spillover benefits and health gain. The 2008 study was extensively quoted and cited as a clear justification for the economic importance of medical research and appears to have played a role in achieving the protection of the medical science budget in the recent public expenditure cuts. This cancer study used a similar approach to that used in the previous study, but with some methodological developments. One of the methodological developments was the inclusion of case studies to examine the validity and variability of the estimates on elapsed time between funding and health gains, and the amount of health gains that can be attributed to UK research. This study provides the full text of the five case studies conducted as well as some discussion of observations emerging across the case study set.
Identifiers
28083345PMC5052008What 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.