Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29422063›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2018

ISRIA statement: ten-point guidelines for an effective process of research impact assessment.

Paula Adam, Pavel V Ovseiko, Jonathan Grant, Kathryn E A Graham, Omar F Boukhris, Anne-Maree Dowd, Gert V Balling, Rikke N Christensen, Alexandra Pollitt, Mark Taylor and 5 more

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Investigating the research capacity and productivity of Canadian sports chiropractors.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

15 authors.

Paula AdamAgency for Health Quality and Assessment of Catalonia (AQuAS), Carrer de Roc Boronat, 81, ES-08005, Barcelona, Spain. padam@gencat.cat.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9939-071X
Pavel V OvseikoRadcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3504-2177
Jonathan GrantThe Policy Institute, King's College London, Strand Campus, London, WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1646-3486
Kathryn E A GrahamAlberta Innovates, 10104-103 Avenue NW, Edmonton, AB, T5J 4A7, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3277-8987
Omar F BoukhrisQatar National Research Fund, PO Box 5825, Doha, Qatar.
Anne-Maree DowdCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, PO Box 883, Kenmore, Brisbane, 4069, Australia.
Gert V BallingNovo Nordisk Foundation, Tuborg Havnevej 19, DK-2900, Hellerup, Denmark.
Rikke N ChristensenNovo Nordisk Foundation, Tuborg Havnevej 19, DK-2900, Hellerup, Denmark.
Alexandra PollittThe Policy Institute, King's College London, Strand Campus, London, WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom.
Mark TaylorNational Institute for Health Research, Central Commissioning Facility, Grange House 15, Church Street, Twickenham, TW1 3NL, United Kingdom.
Omar SuedFundación Huésped, Pasaje A. Peluffo 3932, Buenos Aires, C1202ABB, Argentina.
Saba Hinrichs-KrapelsThe Policy Institute, King's College London, Strand Campus, London, WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom.
Maite Solans-DomènechAgency for Health Quality and Assessment of Catalonia (AQuAS), Carrer de Roc Boronat, 81, ES-08005, Barcelona, Spain.
Heidi ChorzempaAlberta Innovates, 10104-103 Avenue NW, Edmonton, AB, T5J 4A7, Canada.
International School on Research Impact Assessment (ISRIA)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As governments, funding agencies and research organisations worldwide seek to maximise both the financial and non-financial returns on investment in research, the way the research process is organised and funded is becoming increasingly under scrutiny. There are growing demands and aspirations to measure research impact (beyond academic publications), to understand how science works, and to optimise its societal and economic impact. In response, a multidisciplinary practice called research impact assessment is rapidly developing. Given that the practice is still in its formative stage, systematised recommendations or accepted standards for practitioners (such as funders and those responsible for managing research projects) across countries or disciplines to guide research impact assessment are not yet available.In this statement, we propose initial guidelines for a rigorous and effective process of research impact assessment applicable to all research disciplines and oriented towards practice. This statement systematises expert knowledge and practitioner experience from designing and delivering the International School on Research Impact Assessment (ISRIA). It brings together insights from over 450 experts and practitioners from 34 countries, who participated in the school during its 5-year run (from 2013 to 2017) and shares a set of core values from the school's learning programme. These insights are distilled into ten-point guidelines, which relate to (1) context, (2) purpose, (3) stakeholders' needs, (4) stakeholder engagement, (5) conceptual frameworks, (6) methods and data sources, (7) indicators and metrics, (8) ethics and conflicts of interest, (9) communication, and (10) community of practice.The guidelines can help practitioners improve and standardise the process of research impact assessment, but they are by no means exhaustive and require evaluation and continuous improvement. The prima facie effectiveness of the guidelines is based on the systematised expert and practitioner knowledge of the school's faculty and participants derived from their practical experience and research evidence. The current knowledge base has gaps in terms of the geographical and scientific discipline as well as stakeholder coverage and representation. The guidelines can be further strengthened through evaluation and continuous improvement by the global research impact assessment community.

Indexed as

Evaluation Studies as TopicGuidelines as TopicResearch DesignHealth Impact AssessmentHumansResearchTranslational Research, BiomedicalEvaluationGuidelinesInternational School on Research Impact Assessment (ISRIA)Research impact assessmentResponsible research and innovationScience of scienceScience policy

Identifiers

PMID29422063
PMCPMC5806262

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.