Observational studyMedicine2026
Construction of a balanced scorecard-based performance evaluation indicator system for research management in key biomedical research laboratories: An observational study.
Observational study in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The need for robust performance evaluation frameworks in research laboratories has become increasingly critical. This study aimed to develop a comprehensive system for key biomedical research laboratories. To construct a scientifically validated and comprehensive performance evaluation indicator system for research management in key biomedical research laboratories based on the balanced scorecard framework. A mixed-methods approach was employed, integrating literature review, Delphi expert consultation (n = 17), and analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The initial indicator framework was developed through systematic literature analysis and refined through 2 rounds of Delphi consultation. The AHP method was used to determine indicator weights. Consistency was assessed using Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) and consistency ratio. The final evaluation system comprises 4 primary indicators (financial, customer/service, internal process, learning and growth), 12 secondary indicators, and 28 tertiary indicators. Expert consensus was achieved with W = 0.812 (P < .001) after 2 Delphi rounds. The AHP analysis yielded weights of 0.245 for internal process, 0.232 for learning and growth, 0.278 for financial, and 0.245 for customer/service perspectives. The consistency ratio (= 0.089) indicated acceptable consistency. The developed balanced scorecard-based performance evaluation system provides a comprehensive and balanced framework for assessing research management in key medical laboratories, emphasizing strategic orientation and sustainable development.
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.