Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32339197›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

The Profile of Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) research in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region: Analyzing the NCD burden, research outputs and international research collaboration.

Ajay Aggarwal, Preeti Patel, Grant Lewison, Abdulkarim Ekzayez, Adam Coutts, Fouad M Fouad, Omar Shamieh, Rita Giacaman, Tezer Kutluk, Rima Abdul Khalek and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

14 authors.

Ajay AggarwalInstitute of Cancer Policy, Cancer Epidemiology, Population & Global Health, School of Cancer Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9645-6659
Preeti PatelDepartment of War Studies, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Grant LewisonInstitute of Cancer Policy, Cancer Epidemiology, Population & Global Health, School of Cancer Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4493-1216
Abdulkarim EkzayezDepartment of War Studies, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2104-3363
Adam CouttsDepartment of Sociology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Fouad M FouadGlobal Health Institute/Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Omar ShamiehKing Hussein Cancer Center, Amman, Jordan.ORCID 0000-0002-3635-8624
Rita GiacamanInstitute of Community and Public Health, Birzeit University, Birzeit, West Bank, occupied Palestinian territory.
Tezer KutlukDepartment of Pediatric Oncology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Rima Abdul KhalekGlobal Health Institute/Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Mark LawlerQueen's University Belfast, Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Peter BoyleInternational Prevention Research Institute, Lyon, France.
Diana SarfatiDepartment of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Richard SullivanInstitute of Cancer Policy, Cancer Epidemiology, Population & Global Health, School of Cancer Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR300599
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDespite the rising risk factor exposure and non-communicable disease (NCD) mortality across the Middle East and the North African (MENA) region, public health policy responses have been slow and appear discordant with the social, economic and political circumstances in each country. Good health policy and outcomes are intimately linked to a research-active culture, particularly in NCD. In this study we present the results of a comprehensive analysis of NCD research with particular a focus on cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease in 10 key countries that represent a spectrum across MENA between 1991 and 2018.

methodsThe study uses a well validated bibliometric approach to undertake a quantitative analysis of research output in the ten leading countries in biomedical research in the MENA region on the basis of articles and reviews in the Web of Science database. We used filters for each of the three NCDs and biomedical research to identify relevant papers in the WoS. The countries selected for the analyses were based on the volume of research outputs during the period of analysis and stability, included Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

resultsA total of 495,108 biomedical papers were found in 12,341 journals for the ten MENA countries (here we consider Turkey in the context of MENA). For all three NCDs, Turkey's output is consistently the highest. Iran has had considerable growth in research output to occupy second place across all three NCDs. It appears that, relative to their wealth (measured by GDP), some MENA countries, particularly Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, are substantially under-investing in biomedical research. In terms of investment on particular NCDs, we note the relatively greater commitment on cancer research compared with diabetes or cardiovascular disease in most MENA countries, despite cardiovascular disease causing the greatest health-related burden. When considering the citation impact of research outputs, there have been marked rises in citation scores in Qatar, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates and Oman. However, Turkey, which has the largest biomedical research output in the Middle East has the lowest citation scores overall. The level of intra-regional collaboration in NCD research is highly variable. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the dominant research collaborators across the MENA region. However, Turkey and Iran, which are amongst the leading research-active countries in the area, show little evidence of collaboration. With respect to international collaboration, the United States and United Kingdom are the dominant research partners across the region followed by Germany and France.

conclusionThe increase in research activity in NCDs across the MENA region countries during the time period of analysis may signal both an increasing focus on NCDs which reflects general global trends, and greater investment in research in some countries. However, there are several risks to the sustainability of these improvements that have been identified in particular countries within the region. For example, a lack of suitably trained researchers, low political commitment and poor financial support, and minimal international collaboration which is essential for wider global impact.

Indexed as

BibliometricsAfrica, NorthernBiomedical ResearchHumansInternational CooperationMiddle EastNoncommunicable DiseasesPeriodicals as Topic

Identifiers

PMID32339197
PMCPMC7185716

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.