Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

G Lewison

Publications and source records attributed to G Lewison.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Worldwide alcohol-related research and the disease burden.

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to determine the international commitment to alcohol-related research relative to its global burden of disease, which is 4% of disability adjusted life years (DALYs). METHODS: The worldwide literature indexed in the Science Citation Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index during 1992-2003 was analysed using advanced bibliometric techniques. RESULTS: Biomedical research and the global disease burden due to alcohol both increased during 1992-2003, whilst the number of papers from alcohol-related research remained static and declined to <0.7% of all biomedical research literature. Nearly 58% of all alcohol-related research papers were from Canada and the United States, 30% from Western Europe, and 10% from Australia, New Zealand, or Japan. However, these regions suffer only 13% of the global burden of disease due to alcohol; meanwhile, the rest of the world contributed only 8% of the total research whilst suffering from 87% of the disease burden. The estimated annual expenditure on alcohol-related research in 2001 was 730 million dollars, or about 12 dollars per DALY due to alcohol. CONCLUSIONS: The global commitment to alcohol-related research is only one-sixth of that warranted by the burden of disease due to alcohol. Most such research is conducted in the developed world but is still less than that appropriate to the regional burden of disease. There is a need for more interest in alcohol-related research in the developing world, particularly in Latin America and Eastern Europe in view of their high burden of disease due to alcohol.

Alcoholism↗
PubMed2005

Research outputs in respiratory medicine.

BACKGROUND: There is currently little information regarding how much the distribution of research activity in respiratory medicine reflects the interests of its clinicians and scientists, the disease burden in any country, or the availability of funding. METHODS: A total of 81,419 respiratory medicine publications identified in the Science Citation Index for the years 1996-2001 were assigned to 14 subject areas (mainly based on title words) and to 15 OECD countries. Outputs were compared with a nation's disease burdens and, for the UK, the sources of research funding were investigated. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Overall, Finland, Canada, Spain and the UK had the greatest relative commitment to respiratory medicine research expressed as a ratio of their share of world biomedical research. The largest subject areas were asthma, lung cancer, and paediatric lung disease, each with over 1400 papers published per year. Australia and Canada led in relative commitment to sleep research and Sweden and Finland led in research on asthma. Australia and the UK produced significant numbers of publications on cystic fibrosis (CF) but Finland produced few. The Netherlands has a strong output on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), France and the UK on diffuse parenchymal lung disease (DPLD), and Finland dominated occupational lung disease research but had few publications on HIV/AIDS where Spain proportionately produced most. Finland and Australia had strong outputs in paediatric lung disease research. For most subject areas the research output of a country correlated poorly with disease burden. In the UK, lung cancer research appeared unduly low in relation to the number of deaths and COPD outputs were low compared with those for asthma. However, correlations were positive for the burden of CF and pulmonary complications of HIV/AIDS which explains, for example, the low outputs in these subject areas from Finland. The strong performance in CF research in the UK is likely to reflect significant charitable funding, while sleep research, pulmonary circulatory disease, and DPLD had little stated external funding or sponsorship.

Bibliometrics↗
PubMed2002

What Scottish primary care researchers are doing to recover their standing in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outputs of Scottish PC research with the rest of the UK. DESIGN: Bibliometric analysis of the research level and potential impact of research publications. Papers are categorised by level (RL) from basic research to clinical observation and potential impact category (PIC), a 5 year impact factor on a numerical scale. SETTING: Interrogation of the Wellcome Trust's Research Outputs Database 1988-97. SUBJECTS: 17,303 papers, 2,280 arising from Scottish primary care. RESULTS: Scottish primary care publications totalled 14% of the published research in the UK during 1988, by 1997 it had fallen to 10%. PC researchers in the rest of the UK produced a 60% increase (1169 to 1866 per annum) in publications compared to our 25% increase (201 to 251 per annum) over the same period. Scottish papers were less likely to be presenting basic science. The mean potential impact was slightly lower than the rest of the UK (1.89 compared to 1.94, s.e.m.0.02). CONCLUSION: Scottish PC research outputs grew more slowly than the rest of the UK during 1988-97. The research interests and journals selected by the research community contributed to this pattern. The climate, infrastructure and skills required for more effective PC research during this period were also significant factors. The Scottish School of Primary Care provides a mechanism for everyone in NHSScotland and Higher Education Institutions to address the underlying issues identified in this analysis. As a 'baseline' analysis, this report will allow progress to be monitored as the SSPC becomes increasingly effective.

Bibliometrics↗
PubMed2001

Endogenous and exogenous research? Findings from a bibliometric study of UK nursing research.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: This paper uses the findings of a recent bibliometric analysis of published UK nursing research to ask whether the field is characterized by a fundamental split between two underlying areas of research interest. These can be termed 'endogenous' and 'exogenous'. The former term describes research which tends to be concerned with problems and issues to do with nursing as a profession; the latter is concerned with problems and issues centring around the nursing of patients. DESIGN/METHODS: Papers in the Wellcome Trust's Research Outputs Database (ROD), a database of UK biomedical research, were analysed. Nursing papers published between 1988 and 1995 numbered 1,845, just less than 1% of the total papers in the ROD. RESULTS/FINDINGS: Analysis of the subfield identified that nursing research was atypical of biomedical research as a whole in a number of ways. One difference was that usually in biomedical research there is a general correlation between numbers of funders acknowledged on a paper, numbers of authors, and esteem of the journal in which a paper appears. In nursing there was, if anything, a tendency for highly esteemed papers to have fewer authors and be less likely to have acknowledged funding. However, the apparently endogenous and exogenous papers have quite different characteristics. This paper explores this apparent difference and possible reasons for this difference and will briefly compare nursing research with some other newly emerging social and academic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Thinking of nursing research outputs in this way can provide insight into the existence of different reward systems influencing nurse researchers. However, it is impossible to draw too confident a differentiation without reading each individual paper and making judgements about whether they are 'endogenous' or 'exogenous', a practice generally beyond the scope of bibliometric practice.

Authorship↗
PubMed2001

International gastroenterology research: subject areas, impact, and funding.

AIMS: To examine the volume and potential impact of gastroenterology research outputs from 1985 to 1998 from 14 developed countries; the overlap with research in cancer, infectious diseases, and genetics; and the funding sources for this research. To determine if countries' research outputs correlated with their burden of corresponding diseases and inputs to their research. METHODS: Selective retrieval of papers from the Science Citation Index and manual look up of a sample to determine funding sources. Classification of journals by four categories of research level (clinical/basic) and potential impact (low/high). RESULTS: Gastroenterology represents about 8% of world biomedical research but over 11% in Italy, Japan, and Spain. Its potential impact is highest (but declining) for the USA. It has increased noticeably in most European countries, particularly in Finland. Gastroenterology research has become more clinical in Japan, Spain, Australia, and the Netherlands but more basic in Canada, Germany, Finland, Israel, and South Africa. Funding comes primarily from national governments, followed by national private non-profit sources and industry but little industrial funding occurs in some countries. There is a strong and positive correlation between reported deaths from gastrointestinal neoplasms and countries' outputs of research in gastrointestinal oncology. CONCLUSIONS: Bibliometric analysis can reveal differences between countries in their research in a subject when a common methodology is applied to an international database. Variations in research methods in different countries can plausibly explain some of the variation in the potential impact of the work.

Asia↗
PubMed1999

Bibliometric methods for the evaluation of arthritis research.

This study uses bibliometric methods to evaluate the magnitude and quality of publications in arthritis research in the UK and compare this with that of other countries. Arthritis research was defined by publication in a specialist journal or by specific title key words or address. Outputs from 13 countries between 1988 and 1995 were analysed by number, research level (from clinical to basic) and potential impact on other researchers (from low to high). The UK has a strong presence in arthritis research and the highest relative commitment of all the countries studied. UK output was more clinical than that of other countries, except Spain, and was of relatively high impact. A second study examined UK arthritis papers supported by different funding sources, including government, private-non-profit and industry. Papers with funding acknowledgements were of significantly higher impact and less clinical than those without. The Arthritis Research Campaign was the leading funder in the UK with high-impact papers which, over the 8 yr period, have become more clinical than those supported by other funding sources, except hospital trusts.

Arthritis↗
PubMed1998

Gastroenterology research in the United Kingdom: funding sources and impact.

AIMS: To determine the sources of founding for UK gastroenterology research papers and the relative impact of papers funded by different groups and of unfunded ones. METHODS: UK gastroenterology papers from 1988-94 were selectively retrieved from the Science Citation Index by means of a specially constructed filter based on their title keywords and journal names. They were looked up in libraries to determine their funding sources and these, together with their numbers of authors, numbers of addresses, and research category (clinical/basic) were considered as input parameters to the research. Output parameters analysed were mean journal impact category, citation counts by papers, and the frequency of citation by a US patient. RESULTS: Gastroenterology papers comprise about 7% of all UK biomedical research and 46% of them have no acknowledged funding source. One quarter of the papers acknowledged government support, and a similar fraction a private, non-profit source; 11% were funded by the pharmaceutical industry. The papers acknowledging funding had significantly more impact than the others on all three measures. The citing patents had six times more UK inventors than the average for all US Patent and Trademark Office patents in the relevant classes and were mostly generic in application. CONCLUSION: The variation in impact of papers funded by different sources can mostly be explained by a simple model based on the input factors (numbers of funding bodies, numbers of authors, numbers of addresses, and research type). The national science base in gastroenterology is important for the underpinning of UK invented patents citing to it.

Financing, Organized↗