Evaluating “payback” on biomedical research from papers cited in clinical guidelines: applied bibliometric study

OBJECTIVES: To develop a methodology for evaluating the impact of research on health care, and to characterise the papers cited on clinical guidelines. DESIGN: The bibliographic details of the papers cited in 15 clinical guidelines, developed in and for the United Kingdom, were collated and analysed with applied bibliometric techniques. RESULTS: The median age of papers cited in clinical guidelines was eight years; most papers were published by authors living in either the United States (36%) or the United Kingdom (25%)—this is two and a half times more than expected as about 10% of all biomedical outputs are published in the United Kingdom; and clinical guidelines do not cite basic research papers. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the evidence base of clinical guidelines may be one way of tracking the flow of knowledge from the laboratory to the clinic. Moreover, such analysis provides a useful, clinically relevant method for evaluating research outcomes and different strategies in research and development.