Elena Pallari

European Non-Communicable Respiratory Disease Research, 2002-13: Bibliometric Study of Outputs and Funding

This study was conducted in order to map European research in chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs). It was intended to assist the European Commission and other research funders to identify gaps and overlaps in their portfolios, and to suggest ways in which they could improve the effectiveness of their support and increase the impact of the research on patient care and on the reduction of the incidence of the CRDs. Articles and reviews were identified in the Web of Science on research in six non-communicable respiratory diseases that were published in 2002–13 from 31 European countries. They represented only 0.8% of biomedical research output but these diseases accounted for 4.7% of the European disease burden, as measured by Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs), so the sub-field is seriously under-researched. Europe is prominent in the sub-field and published 56% of the world total, with the UK the most productive and publishing more than France and Italy, the next two countries, combined. Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) were the diseases with the most publications and the highest citation rates. They also received the most funding, with around two acknowledgments per paper (in 2009–13), whereas cystic fibrosis and emphysema averaged only one. Just over 37% of papers had no specific funding and depended on institutional support from universities and hospitals.

Differential research impact in cancer practice guidelines’ evidence base: lessons from ESMO, NICE and SIGN

Background This is an appraisal of the impact of cited research evidence underpinning the development of cancer clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) by the professional bodies of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Methods A total of 101 CPGs were identified from ESMO, NICE and SIGN websites across 13 cancer sites. Their 9486 cited references were downloaded from the Web of Science Clarivate Group database, analysed on Excel (2016) using Visual Basic Application macros and imported onto SPSS (V.24.0) for statistical tests. Results ESMO CPGs mostly cited research from Western Europe, while the NICE and SIGN ones from the UK, Canada, Australia and Scandinavian countries. The ESMO CPGs cited more recent and basic research (eg, drugs treatment), in comparison with NICE and SIGN CPGs where older and more clinical research (eg, surgery) papers were referenced. This chronological difference in the evidence base is also in line with that ESMO has a shorter gap between the publication of the research and its citation on the CPGs. It was demonstrated that ESMO CPGs report more chemotherapy research, while the NICE and SIGN CPGs report more surgery, with the results being statistically significant. Conclusions We showed that ESMO, NICE and SIGN differ in their evidence base of CPGs. Healthcare professionals should be aware of this heterogeneity in effective decision-making of tailored treatments to patients, irrespective of geographic location across Europe.

How is chronic non-communicable respiratory conditions research reported in European newspapers?: An impact assessment for policy

Newspapers are an important means for the communication of medical research findings to policy‐makers and the public, but may distort their views on the relative importance of research into, and burden from, different respiratory diseases.

The Value of UK Respiratory Conditions Research on Clinical Practice Guidelines from Other European Member States

Background/objectives: Research on chronic non-communicable respiratory conditions is limited. This study assessed the impact of UK medical research on other European countries development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), to evaluate the UK contribution to the evidence-base of European CPGs on chronic non-communicable respiratory conditions. Method: The UK contribution was determined on a fractional count basis to clinical guidelines’ citations: (1) from each of five selected (target) Member States (MS), namely France, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland; and (2) from the other 25 countries (the other 23 EU MS, plus Iceland and Norway). Results: There were 6,087 cited references on 52 clinical practice guidelines published from 21 European countries. The UK contribution varied between 11% and 17% for the five target EU MSs countries for all respiratory conditions clinical guidelines. There was more foreign collaboration research on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (33%) than asthma (25%) with results being statistically significant. Conclusions: The study showed the importance of UK medical research contribution to the evidence-base of respiratory clinical guidelines in other European MS. Notable differences between asthma and COPD, can inform research priorities and medical progression on respiratory conditions’ clinical management.