Bibliometrics approach to evaluating the research impact of CTSAs: A pilot study

Translating Scientific Discovery Into Health Policy Impact: Innovative Bibliometrics Bridge Translational Research Publications to Policy Literature

To understand how translational science efforts lead to outcomes, it is common to examine publications as a key step in the translational process. The National Institutes of Health's Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program aims to accelerate that process by providing support to investigators. Although it is challenging to measure the impact of such support on translational outcomes, CTSA-supported research that arises in research publications can advance translation through use of these publications in public policy and guideline documents from government health agencies, intergovernmental organizations, and other outlets. Using cutting-edge bibliometric tools, the authors evaluated how CTSA-supported research has extended its impact beyond academic silos to influence public policy literature. The authors identified approximately 118,490 publications that acknowledged receiving support from a CTSA hub, from the inception of the program in 2006 through 2021. Articles were queried in the Overton policy database, which indexes references to publications in global policy literature. The search revealed 13% of CTSA-supported articles were referenced in policy documents, significantly more than the expected proportion (10%) calculated by Overton. References came from 576 policy source outlets across 87 countries, predominantly the United States and Europe. The most frequent sources included guidelines in PubMed Central, the World Health Organization, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors illustrate the bridge from translational research to public policy with case studies of 6 articles based on CTSA-supported research and having notable policy impact. They found articles with greater clinical relevance, altmetric attention (i.e., nonacademic community/public attention), and academic citation influence were more likely to be referenced in policy literature. Study findings help to characterize the kinds of research that have influenced and may be expected to influence health policy in the future.

Evaluating the impact of a CTSA program from 2008 to 2021 through bibliometrics, social network analysis, and altmetrics

Introduction

We evaluate a CTSA program hub by applying bibliometrics, social network analysis (SNA), and altmetrics and examine the changes in research productivity, citation impact, research collaboration, and CTSA-supported research topics since our pilot study in 2017.

Methods

The sampled data included North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS)-supported publications produced between September 2008 and March 2021. We applied measures and metrics from bibliometrics, SNA, and altmetrics to the dataset. In addition, we analyzed research topics and correlations between different metrics.

Results

1154 NC TraCS-supported publications generated over 53,560 citation counts by April 2021. The average cites per year and the relative citation ratio (RCR) mean of these publications improved from 33 and 2.26 in 2017 to 48 and 2.58 in 2021. The number of involved UNC units in the most published authors' collaboration network increased from 7 (2017) to 10 (2021). NC TraCS-supported co-authorship involved 61 NC organizations. PlumX metrics identified articles with the highest altmetrics scores. About 96% NC TraCS-supported publications have above the average SciVal Topic Prominence Percentile; the average approximate potential to translate of the included publication was 54.2%; and 177 publications addressed health disparity issues. Bibliometric measures (e.g., citation counts, RCR) and PlumX metrics (i.e., Citations, Captures, and Social-Media) are positively correlated (p < .05).

Conclusion

Bibliometrics, SNA, and altmetrics offer distinctive but related perspectives to examine CTSA research performance and longitudinal growth, especially at the individual program hub level. These perspectives can help CTSAs build program foci.

A research intelligence approach to assess the research impact of the Dutch university medical centres

BACKGROUND

The way in which research impact is evaluated and assessed has long been under debate. In recent years the focus is moving away from the use of numerical indicators, towards an emphasis on narratives. The Dutch university medical centres (UMCs) have a long-standing tradition of using bibliometric indicators. Because of the declining interest in indicators alone, this study was designed to repurpose bibliometrics to answer specific strategic questions. In this article we discuss the strategic and policy-based questions, the methodology we used in uncovering relevant information and conclusions we draw from the analyses we performed. The aim of this article is to inform a broader audience about the potential applications of bibliometric information to support a new form of research intelligence.

METHODS

In this study we used a curated set of publications from the UMCs. We performed different bibliometric analyses and used bibliometric visualization tools to shed light on research focus, open science practices, collaboration, societal impact and scientific impact.

RESULTS

The analyses allowed us to visualize and contextualize the research focus of the UMCs as a whole, but also to show specific focus areas of each UMC. The UMCs are active in the full spectrum of biomedical research, and at the same time are very complementary to each other. Furthermore, we were able to show the development of open access of UMC publications over time, to support the national mission. Visualizing collaboration is a powerful way of showing both the international orientation and the regional and national engine function of UMCs in research. We were able to assess societal impact by looking at the different channels in which publications find their way to societally relevant sources such as news media, policy documents and guidelines. Finally, we assessed scientific impact and put this into an international perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Research intelligence is able to transform bibliometric information by interpretation and annotation into highly relevant insights that can be used for several different strategic purposes and for research impact assessment in general.

Big splashes & ripple effects: a narrative review of the short- & long-term impact of publications supported by an NIH CTSA pediatrics program

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This review examines a promising new framework for analyzing outputs of pediatric research in the context of translational advancement. We demonstrate a method for evaluating the impact of an NIH Clinical and Translational Science Award's (CTSA) Pediatrics Program through publications that have emerged from supported research. The Georgia CTSA Pediatrics Program provides training, funding, and infrastructure to ensure that researchers have the resources to advance pediatric health. Internal evaluations found that research supported by this program is exceptionally impactful within the academic community and commands high interest within the lay community. Therefore, we examined the impact of this research in both traditional academic and broader community spheres using bibliometrics-the study of supported publications. Bibliometrics describe a pivotal stage in the translational process of bringing scientific discoveries to clinical/community use and include both academic citations and 'altmetric' or non-academic attention. These complementary approaches combine to shed light on the short- and long-term impact of the research on segments of the translational pipeline, including academic literature, community discourse, technological advancement, and public health policy.

METHODS

The authors identified a portfolio of 250 articles supported by the Georgia CTSA Pediatrics Program from 2007-2020. We utilized various bibliometrics to analyze both short-term attention, or 'splash' made by articles, and long-term influence, or 'ripples' made across both academic and public spheres.

KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS

The short-term splash of the portfolio was indicated through publication in high-impact factor journals, peer faculty recommendations, and Mendeley readership, as well as by early altmetric attention in news stories, blogs, and Twitter posts. The portfolio's long-term ripples were demonstrated by high absolute and relative rates of academic citation and by downstream altmetric influence in public-facing documents, including Wikipedia articles, patent applications, and policy documents.

CONCLUSIONS

This article reviews a useful bibliometric methodology for illustrating the waves of impact made by pediatric research. Whereas splash provides a picture of early interest in a publication, a preliminary indicator of eventual utility and impact, ripples provide a measure of the cumulative influence of an article over time. Both reflect opportunities for a line of research to advance along the translational spectrum.

Predicting Citation Impact from Altmetric Attention in Clinical and Translational Research: Do Big Splashes Lead to Ripple Effects?

Publications are commonly used to evaluate the productivity and impact of research programs. Traditional metrics examine publication impact through slowly accumulating academic citations. “Altmetrics” are a new way to describe early publication influence in nonacademic media/community spheres (news, tweets, and blogs). Articles with significant altmetric attention make a big splash of immediate impact, whereas papers with high rates of academic citation reflect ripple effects of influence over time. Past research has found weak associations between altmetrics and academic citations. However, no previous research has focused on clinical/translational research, which aims to translate scientific discoveries to public use. Further, no previous research has assessed the relationship between altmetrics and modern citation impact factors like the National Institutes of Health (NIH)’s Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). It is also unclear whether publication in journals with higher journal impact factors (JIFs) may drive both public attention and academic impact. We investigated whether early altmetric indicators of splash predict citation ripples, beyond the effect of the JIF. For a portfolio of 2188 publications supported by the NIH’s Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance from 2007–2020, we collected 2020 Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS), 2020 JIFs, and 2021 RCRs. All three were significantly correlated with one another. Regression analyses revealed that AAS significantly predicts later RCR, controlling for JIF and publication year. Findings indicate that in clinical/translational science, articles that make a big splash of altmetric attention have ripple effects through increased citation influence, which is not entirely due to publication in higher impact journals. Altmetric attention may be a useful early indicator of eventual influence and potential for translational advancement.

Structure, function, and productivity from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

Introduction:

Following inception in 2005 as a multiregional practice-based research network (PBRN), the “National Dental PBRN” expanded nationwide in 2012, and in 2019 implemented additional organizational changes. The objectives are to: (1) describe the new structure and function of the network; and (2) quantify its scientific productivity since 2005.

Methods:

A national Administrative and Resource Center is based in Alabama; regional and specialty nodes are based in Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, New York, and Texas. A Network Coordinating Center is based in Oregon. Studies are funded via investigator-initiated grants. Scientific productivity is assessed using specific metrics, including the Relative Citation Ratio.

Results:

To date, 58 studies have been completed or are in data collection or development. These studies have investigated a broad range of topics using a wide variety of study designs. Of the studies that have completed enrollment, 70,665 patients were enrolled, as were 19,827 practitioners (some participated in multiple studies), plus electronic records for 790,493 patients in two data-only studies. To date, these studies have led to 193 peer-reviewed scientific publications in 62 different journals. The mean (1.40) Relative Citation Ratio of Network publications connotes a greater-than-average influence in their fields.

Conclusions:

These metrics demonstrate that the PBRN research context can successfully engage practitioners and patients from diverse settings nationally with a high and sustained level of scientific productivity. This infrastructure has enabled clinical scientists in oral health and nonoral health topics and provided additional recruitment venues outside of the typical academic health center research context.

A large National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre facilitates impactful cross-disciplinary and collaborative translational research publications and research collaboration networks: a bibliometric evaluation study

Background

The evaluation of translational health research is important for various reasons such as the research impact assessment, research funding allocation, accountability, and strategic research policy formulation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the research productivity, strength and diversity of research collaboration networks and impact of research supported by a large biomedical research centre in the United Kingdom (UK).

Methods

Bibliometric analysis of research publications by translational researchers affiliated with the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) from April 2012 to March 2017.

Results

Analysis included 2377 translational research publications that were published during the second 5-year funding period of the NIHR Oxford BRC. Author details were available for 99.75% of the publications with DOIs (2359 of 2365 with DOIs), and the number of authors per publication was median 9 (mean  = 18.03, SD  = 3.63, maximum  = 2467 authors). Author lists also contained many consortia, groups, committees, and teams (n  = 165 in total), with 1238 additional contributors, where membership was reported. The BRC co-authorship i.e., research collaboration network for these publications involved 20,229 nodes (authors, of which 1606 nodes had Oxford affiliations), and approximately 4.3 million edges (authorship linkages). Articles with a valid DOIs (2365 of 2377, 99.5%) were collectively cited more than 155,000 times and the average Field Citation Ratio was median 6.75 (geometric mean  = 7.12) while the average Relative Citation Ratio was median 1.50 (geometric mean  = 1.83) for the analysed publications.

Conclusions

The NIHR Oxford BRC generated substantial translational research publications and facilitated a huge collaborative network of translational researchers working in complex structures and consortia, which shows success across the whole of this BRC funding period. Further research involving continued uptake of unique persistent identifiers and the tracking of other research outputs such as clinical innovations and patents would allow a more detailed understanding of large research enterprises such as NIHR BRCs in the UK.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12967-021-03149-x.

Using bibliometrics to evaluate outcomes and influence of translational biomedical research centers

Introduction

Federal grant funding to support infrastructure development of translational biomedical research centers is a form of public health intervention. Establishing rigorous methods for measuring center success and outcomes is essential to justify continued funding.

Methods

Bibliometric data compiled from a 5-year funding cycle of neurodegeneration and translational neuroscience research center were analyzed using the package bibliometrix for open-source software R and the NIH-developed research tool iCite.

Results

The research team and their collaborators (n = 485) produced 157 grant-citing publications from 2015-2020. The science was produced by small research teams clustered around three main communities of topics: Alzheimer's Disease, brain imaging, and neuropsychological testing in the elderly. Using the relative citation ratio, the publications produced by the research team were found to be influential when compared to other R01-funded publications.

Conclusion

Recent developments in bibliometric analysis expand beyond traditional measurement capabilities to better understand the characteristics, outcomes, and influences of research teams. These findings can be used to inform researchers and institutions about research team composition, productivity, and success. Measures of research influence may be used to justify return on investment to funders.

Scholarly Productivity Evaluation of KL2 Scholars Using Bibliometrics and Federal Follow-on Funding: Cross-Institution Study

Background

Evaluating outcomes of the clinical and translational research (CTR) training of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hub (eg, the KL2 program) requires the selection of reliable, accessible, and standardized measures. As measures of scholarly success usually focus on publication output and extramural funding, CTSA hubs have started to use bibliometrics to evaluate the impact of their supported scholarly activities. However, the evaluation of KL2 programs across CTSAs is limited, and the use of bibliometrics and follow-on funding is minimal.

Objective

This study seeks to evaluate scholarly productivity, impact, and collaboration using bibliometrics and federal follow-on funding of KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA hubs and to define and assess CTR training success indicators.

Methods

The sample included KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA institutions (A-C). Bibliometric data for each scholar in the sample were collected from both SciVal and iCite, including scholarly productivity, citation impact, and research collaboration. Three federal follow-on funding measures (at the 5-year, 8-year, and overall time points) were collected internally and confirmed by examining a federal funding database. Both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were computed using SPSS to assess the bibliometric and federal follow-on funding results.

Results

A total of 143 KL2 scholars were included in the sample with relatively equal groups across the 3 CTSA institutions. The included KL2 scholars produced more publications and citation counts per year on average at the 8-year time point (3.75 publications and 26.44 citation counts) than the 5-year time point (3.4 publications vs 26.16 citation counts). Overall, the KL2 publications from all 3 institutions were cited twice as much as others in their fields based on the relative citation ratio. KL2 scholars published work with researchers from other US institutions over 2 times (5-year time point) or 3.5 times (8-year time point) more than others in their research fields. Within 5 years and 8 years postmatriculation, 44.1% (63/143) and 51.7% (74/143) of KL2 scholars achieved federal funding, respectively. The KL2-scholars of Institution C had a significantly higher citation rate per publication than the other institutions (P<.001). Institution A had a significantly lower rate of nationally field-weighted collaboration than did the other institutions (P<.001). Institution B scholars were more likely to have received federal funding than scholars at Institution A or C (P<.001).

Conclusions

Multi-institutional data showed a high level of scholarly productivity, impact, collaboration, and federal follow-on funding achieved by KL2 scholars. This study provides insights on the use of bibliometric and federal follow-on funding data to evaluate CTR training success across institutions. CTSA KL2 programs and other CTR career training programs can benefit from these findings in terms of understanding metrics of career success and using that knowledge to develop highly targeted strategies to support early-stage career development of CTR investigators.

Using bibliometrics to evaluate translational science training: evidence for early career success of KL2 scholars

Introduction:

Evaluating clinical and translational research (CTR) mentored training programs is challenging because no two programs are alike. Careful selection of appropriate metrics is required to make valid comparisons between individuals and between programs. The KL2 program provides mentored-training for early-stage CTR investigators. Clinical and Translational Awards across the country have unique KL2 programs. The evaluation of KL2 programs has begun to incorporate bibliometrics to measure KL2 scholar and program impact.

Methods:

This study investigated demographic differences in bibliometric performance and post-K award funding of KL2 scholars and compared the bibliometric performance and post-K award federal funding of KL2 scholars and other mentored-K awardees at the same institution. Data for this study included SciVal and iCite bibliometrics and National Institutions of Health RePORTER grant information for mentored-K awardees (K08, K23, and KL2) at Case Western Reserve University between 2005 and 2013.

Results:

Results showed no demographics differences within the KL2 program scholars. Bibliometric differences between KL2 and other mentored-K awardee indicated an initial KL2 advantage for the number of publications at 5 years’ post-matriculation (i.e., the start of the K award). Regression analyses indicated the number of initial publications was a significant predictor of federal grant funding at the same time point. Analysis beyond the 5-year post-matriculation point did not result in a sustained, significant KL2 advantage.

Conclusions:

Factors that contributed to the grant funding advantage need to be determined. Additionally, differences between translational and clinical bibliometrics must be interpreted with caution, and appropriate metrics for translational science must be established.