Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:29:33.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring the validity of early health technology assessment: Bibliometrics as a tool to indicate its scientific basis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2008

Jonas Lundberg ,
Mats Brommels ,
John Skår  and
Göran Tomson
Jonas Lundberg
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institutet
Mats Brommels
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institutet
John Skår
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institutet
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess whether publications of importance for improving the health system and its technologies are highly cited intrascientifically.

Methods: Bibliometric assessment of the 596 publications used as sources in the fifty SBU Alerts from 2001to 2004 from the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care was carried out using the Thomson Scientific citation indexes. Normalized citation scores were calculated for all included studies. Additional factors such as the time and place of the research, subject categories, and journal source were analyzed.

Results: On average, the sources in SBU Alert have been cited eight times more than the world average consistently during the time period and across research areas. Articles used as its scientific basis are often published in a few, high impact, general medical journals. However, many of the articles are published in field-specific journals with low impact factors. Most articles used in SBU Alert are published by authors based in the United States or the United Kingdom. However, Swedish, Danish, and Dutch publications are overrepresented in its science base, whereas Japanese, Taiwanese, Indian, and Russian publications are underrepresented.

Conclusions: Publications used as sources in a Swedish system for identification and early assessment of new methods in health care are also highly cited within the scientific community. This finding increases the appropriateness of using bibliometric indicators in evaluations of clinical research and suggests that decision makers through SBU Alert are getting scientifically sound advice.

Keywords

BibliometricsBiomedical researchTechnology assessmentBiomedical
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 70 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Carlsson, P. Alert: New medical methods: Early assessment of cost, risk and benefit (in Swedish). Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen Läkemedelsverket SBU; 2000.Google Scholar
2. Chalmers, I. Evaluating “payback” on biomedical research. Biomedical funding decisions should be audited. Br Med J. 2000;321:566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Grant, J, Cottrell, R, Cluzeau, F, Fawcett, G. Evaluating “payback” on biomedical research from papers cited in clinical guidelines: Applied bibliometric study. Br Med J. 2000;320:1107–1111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Grant, J, Cottrell, R, Fawcett, G, Cluzeau, F. Evaluating “payback” on biomedical research—Biomedical funding decisions should be audited—Authors reply. Br Med J. 2000;321:566.Google Scholar
5. International Working Party to Promote and Revitalise Academic Medicine. Academic medicine: The evidence base. Br Med J. 2004;329:789–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Lewison, G. The definition of biomedical research subfields with title keywords and application to the analysis of research outputs. Res Eval. 1996;6:25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Lundberg, J. Lifting the crown—Citation z-score. J Informetrics. 2007;1:145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Lundberg J, Fransson A, Brommels M, et al. Is it better or just the same? Article identification strategies impact bibliometric assessments. Scientometrics. 2006;66:183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Moed, HF, Debruin, RE, Vanleeuwen, TN. New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance—Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics. 1995;33:381–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Narin, F, Hamilton, KS. Bibliometric performance measures. Scientometrics. 1996;36:293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Øvretveit, J. A framework for quality improvement translation: Understanding the conditionality of interventions. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2004;30(Global Supplement):15–24.Google Scholar
12. Raymond, C. Impact factors: Use and abuse in biomedical research. Anat Rec.1999;257:54–57.Google Scholar
13. Schubert, A, Glänzel, W, Braun, T. Relative citation rate: A new indicator for measuring the impact of publications. First National Conference with International Participation on Scientometrics and Linguistics of Scientific Text. Varna; 1983.Google Scholar
14. Seglen, PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. Br Med J. 1997;314:498–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Ugolini, D, Casilli, C, Mela, GS. Assessing oncological productivity: Is one method sufficient? Eur J Cancer. 2002;38:1121–1125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. van Leeuwen, TN. Second generation bibliometric indicators. Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University: Leiden; 2004:209.Google Scholar
17. van Raan, AFJ. Measuring science—Capita selecta of current main issues. In: Glänzel W, Schmoch U, Moed HF, eds. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems. Dordrecht, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2004:19–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Vinkler, P. Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications. Scientometrics. 1986;10:157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Lundberg supplementary material

Lundberg supplementary material

Download Lundberg supplementary material(File)
File 122.4 KB