Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33351845›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

A science impact framework to measure impact beyond journal metrics.

Mary D Ari, John Iskander, John Araujo, Christine Casey, John Kools, Bin Chen, Robert Swain, Miriam Kelly, Tanja Popovic

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The development, validity, and reliability of the Researcher Investment Tool.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Mary D AriCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6484-6855
John IskanderCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
John AraujoCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Christine CaseyCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
John KoolsCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Bin ChenCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Robert SwainCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Miriam KellyCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Tanja PopovicCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Measuring the impact of public health science or research is important especially when it comes to health outcomes. Achieving the desired health outcomes take time and may be influenced by several contributors, making attribution of credit to any one entity or effort problematic. Here we offer a science impact framework (SIF) for tracing and linking public health science to events and/or actions with recognized impact beyond journal metrics. The SIF was modeled on the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Degrees of Impact Thermometer, but differs in that SIF is not incremental, not chronological, and has expanded scope. The SIF recognizes five domains of influence: disseminating science, creating awareness, catalyzing action, effecting change and shaping the future (scope differs from IOM). For public health, the goal is to achieve one or more specific health outcomes. What is unique about this framework is that the focus is not just on the projected impact or outcome but rather the effects that are occurring in real time with the recognition that the measurement field is complex, and it takes time for the ultimate outcome to occur. The SIF is flexible and can be tailored to measure the impact of any scientific effort: from complex initiatives to individual publications. The SIF may be used to measure impact prospectively of an ongoing or new body of work (e.g., research, guidelines and recommendations, or technology) and retrospectively of completed and disseminated work, through linking of events using indicators that are known and have been used for measuring impact. Additionally, linking events offers an approach to both tell our story and also acknowledge other players in the chain of events. The value added by science can easily be relayed to the scientific community, policy makers and the public.

Indexed as

Public HealthEvidence-Based MedicineHealth Impact AssessmentHumansJournal Impact FactorModels, Theoretical

Identifiers

PMID33351845
PMCPMC7755179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.