Is the endocrine research pipeline broken? A systematic evaluation of the Endocrine Society clinical practice guidelines and trial registration
BMC Medicine, ISSN: 1741-7015, Vol: 13, Issue: 1, Page: 187
2015
- 22Citations
- 36Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations22
- Citation Indexes21
- 21
- CrossRef11
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Captures36
- Readers36
- 36
Article Description
Background: Very low quality (VLQ) evidence translates into very low confidence in the balance of risk and benefits based on the estimates drawn from the body of evidence. Consequently, this assessment highlights gaps in the research evidence, i.e. knowledge gaps, for important clinical questions. In this way, expert guideline panels identify priority knowledge gaps that, arguably, should inform the research agenda and prioritize scarce research economical resources. The extent to which the research agenda reflects the knowledge gaps identified in clinical practice guidelines is unknown. Methods: A systematic evaluation of the Endocrine Society (ES) clinical practice guidelines portfolio from 2008 to 2014 was conducted with the objectives to identify (1) recommendations in the ES clinical practice guidelines based on VLQ evidence reflecting knowledge gaps in endocrinology, and (2) active research designed to address these gaps by searching the clinical trial registry, clinicaltrials.gov, using terms describing patients (diseases), interventions, comparison, and outcomes. Results: In 25 ES guidelines, we found 660 recommendations, of which 131 (20 %) were supported by VLQ evidence. Clinical trialists are attempting to answer 28 (21 %) of these knowledge gaps by performing 69 clinical trials. Conclusion: The research enterprise is addressing one in five knowledge gaps identified in clinical practice recommendations in endocrinology. These findings suggest an inefficiency in the allocation of very scarce research economical resources. Linking the research agenda to evidence gaps in clinical practice guidelines may improve both the efficiency of the research enterprise and the translation of evidence into more confident clinical practice.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84938844630&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0435-z; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26265226; https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0435-z; https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0435-z; http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0435-z; https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s12916-015-0435-z; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12916-015-0435-z/fulltext.html; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12916-015-0435-z; https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2Fs12916-015-0435-z.pdf; http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/13/187
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know