Evaluating "payback" on biomedical research from papers cited in clinical guidelines: applied bibliometric study.
OBJECTIVE
To develop a methodology for evaluating the impact of research on health care, and to characterise the papers cited on clinical guidelines.


METHODS
The bibliographic details of the papers cited in 15 clinical guidelines, developed in and for the United Kingdom, were collated and analysed with applied bibliometric techniques.


RESULTS
The median age of papers cited in clinical guidelines was eight years; most papers were published by authors living in either the United States (36%) or the United Kingdom (25%)-this is two and a half times more than expected as about 10% of all biomedical outputs are published in the United Kingdom; and clinical guidelines do not cite basic research papers.


CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of the evidence base of clinical guidelines may be one way of tracking the flow of knowledge from the laboratory to the clinic. Moreover, such analysis provides a useful, clinically relevant method for evaluating research outcomes and different strategies in research and development.
Grant
J
J
Policy Unit, Wellcome Trust, London NW1 2BE. jgrant@wellcome.ac.uk
Cottrell
R
R
Cluzeau
F
F
Fawcett
G
G
D015706:Bibliometrics; D003695:Delivery of Health Care; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006291:Health Policy; D006302:Health Services Research; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D011643:Publishing / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012106:Research / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006113:United Kingdom