ArticleNIHR open research2025
Evaluating Overton and Altmetric as tools for tracking healthcare research use and impact on policy and practice: a descriptive study.
Article in NIHR open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Since 2010, the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Research has funded a policy research unit (PRU) focused on maternal and neonatal health, with a remit to build an evidence base for policy and clinical practice in this field. We explored the usefulness of the platforms Overton and Altmetric as tools to gain insight into the use of PRU research evidence in policy and practice. Methods: We searched Overton and Altmetric using article DOIs to identify citations of PRU-funded articles in policy documents and clinical guidelines. We excluded citations of the research in lists of excluded evidence, academic journal articles, and unverifiable citations. To obtain a count of unique citing documents for each article, we merged multiple editions/versions, translations, and duplicates of the same document. We calculated latency from article publication date to citation date, and citation distribution over time. We also developed descriptive case studies to explore how the citing policy documents used highly-cited research evidence. Results: The 110 published articles reporting research funded by the PRU received 134 unique policy document and clinical guideline citations; 43/110 articles (39%) were cited in at least one document. Most citing documents were authored by organisations based in the UK (52/134) and other high-income countries. Intergovernmental organisations accounted for around 15% of citations (20/134). The median time from article publication to citation was 183 weeks (range 0.4-575 weeks). Citation contexts varied; use of the evidence in citing documents included provision of general background information, detailed summaries of findings, and support/rationale for specific clinical recommendations. Conclusions: Overton and Altmetric are useful tools for identifying and exploring the use of research evidence in healthcare policy and clinical guidance. However, citation analysis alone cannot provide the complete picture. The delay between evidence publication and use in policy warrants further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.