Comparing research investment to United Kingdom institutions and published outputs for tuberculosis, HIV and malaria: a systematic analysis across 1997–2013

BackgroundOn December 8th, 2015, World Health Organization published a priority list of eight pathogens expected to cause severe outbreaks in the near future. To better understand global research trends and characteristics of publications on these emerging pathogens, we carried out this bibliometric study hoping to contribute to global awareness and preparedness toward this topic.MethodScopus database was searched for the following pathogens/infectious diseases: Ebola, Marburg, Lassa, Rift valley, Crimean-Congo, Nipah, Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and Severe Respiratory Acute Syndrome (SARS). Retrieved articles were analyzed to obtain standard bibliometric indicators.ResultsA total of 8619 journal articles were retrieved. Authors from 154 different countries contributed to publishing these articles. Two peaks of publications, an early one for SARS and a late one for Ebola, were observed. Retrieved articles received a total of 221,606 citations with a mean ± standard deviation of 25.7 ± 65.4 citations per article and an h-index of 173. International collaboration was as high as 86.9%. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had the highest share (344; 5.0%) followed by the University of Hong Kong with 305 (4.5%). The top leading journal was Journal of Virology with 572 (6.6%) articles while Feldmann, Heinz R. was the most productive researcher with 197 (2.3%) articles. China ranked first on SARS, Turkey ranked first on Crimean-Congo fever, while the United States of America ranked first on the remaining six diseases. Of retrieved articles, 472 (5.5%) were on vaccine – related research with Ebola vaccine being most studied.ConclusionNumber of publications on studied pathogens showed sudden dramatic rise in the past two decades representing severe global outbreaks. Contribution of a large number of different countries and the relatively high h-index are indicative of how international collaboration can create common health agenda among distant different countries.

Background Campylobacter species are widespread zoonotic pathogens. Campylobacter jejuni causes a form of gastroenteritis called campylobacteriosis. Campylobacter drug resistance is considered a serious threat. In order to better understand national and international research output on Campylobacter, we conducted this bibliometric overview of publications on Campylobacter. This study can be used to assess extent of interaction and response of researchers, food regulators, and health policy makers to global burden of campylobacateriosis.MethodsScopus database was used to retrieve publications with the following keywords (Campylobacter/campylobacteriosis, C. jejuni, C. coli). The study period was set from 2000 to 2015. All types of journal documents, excluding errata, were considered. Bibliometric indicators such as annual growth of publications, country contribution, international collaboration, and citation analysis were presented. The quality of retrieved data was indirectly assessed by Hirsch index and impact factor of journals.ResultsA total of 5522 documents were retrieved with median (Q1–Q3) citations of 9 (2–23) and h-index of 113. Annual number of publications showed a fluctuating increase. The core leading journals were Applied and Environmental Microbiology journal and Journal of Food Protection with 246 (4.46%) publications for each. The USA (1309; 23.6%) was the most productive country while Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (150; 2.7%) was the most productive institution. Half of the top ten productive countries were European. France had the lowest percentage (33.5%) of articles with international collaboration while Netherlands (57.7%) had the highest percentage of articles with international collaboration. Approximately half (50.1%) of retrieved articles were published in journals under the subject area of “immunology/microbiology”. Main themes in highly cited articles were molecular biology/genetics and public health burden of campylobacteriosis. There were 728 (13.1%) articles on campylobacter-related drug resistance, and the top cited articles focused mainly on increasing resistance to quinolones and fluoroquinolones.ConclusionsThere was a clear increase in number of publications on Campylobacter. Rational use of antimicrobials in humans, poultry, and animals is highly recommended. International collaboration is highly required particularly in implementing new diagnostic screening technologies to minimize global health burden of Campylobacter and ensure food safety.

SummaryThe National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia (NIAA) was founded in 2008 to lead a UK strategy for developing academic anaesthesia. We aimed to assess the distribution of applications and quantify the academic returns of NIAA‐supported research grants, as this has hitherto not been analysed. We sought data on the baseline characteristics of all grant applicants and recipients. Every grant recipient from 2008 to 2015 was contacted to ascertain the status of their supported research projects. We also examined Google Scholar, Scopus® database and InCites Journal Citation Reports for citation, author and journal metrics, respectively. In total, 495 research project applications were made, with 150 grants being awarded. Data on 121 out of 150 (80.7%) grant awards, accounting for £3.5 million, were collected, of which 91 completed studies resulted in 140 publications and 2759 citations. The median (IQR [range]) time to first or only publication was 3 (2–4 [0–9]) years. The overall cost per publication was £14,970 (£7457–£24,998 [£2212–£73,755]) and the cost per citation was £1515 (£323–£3785 [£70–£36,182]), with 1 (0–2 [0–8]) publication and 4 (0–25 [0–265]) citations resulting per grant. The impact factor of journals in which publications arose was 4.7 (2.5–6.2 [0–47.8]), with the highest impact arising from clinical and basic science studies, particularly in the fields of pain and peri‐operative medicine. Grants were most frequently awarded to clinical and basic science categories of study, but in terms of specialty, critical care medicine and peri‐operative medicine received the greatest number of grants. Superficially, there seemed a geographical disparity, with 123 (82%) grants being awarded to researchers in England, London receiving 48 (32%) of these. However, this was in proportion to the number of grant applications received by country or city of application, such that there was no significant difference in overall success rates. There was no significant difference in productivity in terms of publications and citations from grants awarded to each city. The 150 grants were awarded to 107 recipients (identified as the most senior applicant for each grant), 27 of whom received ≥ two grants. Recipients had a median career total of 21 (8–76 [0–254]) publications and 302 (44–1320 [0–8167]) citations, with an h‐index of 8 (3–22 [0–54]). We conclude that a key determinant of grant success is simply applying. This is the first study to report the distribution and scholarly output of individual anaesthesia research grants, particularly from a collaborative body such as the NIAA, and can be used as a benchmark to further develop academic anaesthesia in the UK and beyond.