“Performance metrics must also be changed. Clinicians today are assessed according to the number of tests and procedures performed and the number of patients seen. Researchers are judged by the numbers of grants won and articles published. Neither set of metrics clearly leads to improved health outcomes. Integrated, “learning” health systems would result in novel metrics that focus on improving patient-centered outcomes, but they would also focus on active participation in research by multiple stakeholders to advance the same goals. Clinical departments, collaborating with community-based physicians and patient-advocacy groups, would have to prioritize entering patients in trials, and the value of research would have to be recognized in promotion decisions. This alignment of goals, incentives, and metrics would lead to better, more patient-centered clinical research and boost participation among both patients and clinicians, facilitating further improvements in health status.”

Annetine C. Gelijns, Ph.D., and Sherine E. Gabriel, M.D. Looking beyond Translation — Integrating Clinical Research with Medical Practice. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1659-1661. May 3, 2012.

The issue is how to measure what matters, a point raised by Wells and Whitworth:

“It is no longer enough to measure what we can – we need to measure what matters.”

Robert Wells and Judith Whitworth. Assessing Outcomes of Health and Medical Research: Do We Measure What Counts or Count What We Can Measure? Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 2007, 4:14 doi:10.1186/1743-8462-4-14.

The Becker Medical Library Model for Assessment of Research Impact model is a framework for tracking diffusion of research outputs and activities to locate indicators that demonstrate evidence of biomedical research impact. It is intended to be used as a supplement to publication analysis. Using the Becker Model in tandem with publication analysis provides a more robust and comprehensive perspective of biomedical research impact. The Becker Model also includes guidance for quantifying and documenting research impact as well as resources for locating evidence of impact.

Feedback is welcome.

“Little did I realize that there is an even more important impact metric than the h-index: plagiarism.”

See Retraction Watch: How does it feel to have your scientific paper plagiarized? And what can you do about it?

 
Read Dr. Zilberberg’s blog: Healthcare, etc.

For more information on the h index, see Tools for Authors: What is the h index?

“In conclusion, evidence from this study suggests that treatment with amoxicillin for 10 days offers little clinical benefit for most patients with clinically diagnosed uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis.”

Reference: Garbutt JM, Banister C, Spitznagel E, Piccirillo JF. Amoxicillin for acute rhinosinusitis: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2012;307(7):685-692.

YouTube: “Interview with Dr Piccirillo, Author of Amoxicillin for Acute Rhinosinusitis.”

Since the findings were published, a number of online media outlets have reported on the study findings.

US News.  “Antibiotics do nothing to cure sinus infections, study says.”

MSN.News. “Antibiotics of no use in sinus infections.”

The Washington Post. “Study suggests skipping antibiotics for sinus infections.”

Bloomberg Businessweek. “Antibiotic fails to ease sinus infection symptoms, study finds.”

RedOrbit. “Antibiotics do not help with Sinusitis: Study.”

Medical News Today.  “Antibiotics no better than placebo for most sinus infections.”

Riverfront Times. “Think antibiotics can cure a sinus infection? Wash. U. docs say ‘snot so.”

Health Jockey. “Antibiotics may not reduce sinus symptoms?”

Global Post. “Antibiotics like amoxicillin won’t fix sinus infection any faster, study shows.”

Toronto Sun. “Antibiotics ineffective for sinus infections: Study.”

Based on review of the reports, there have been 73 Tweets, 96 Facebook recommendations, 17 comments posted by readers, and 18 other uses of social bookmarking/commentary tools noted.

The Future of Taxpayer-Funded Research: Who Will Control Access to the Results?

“This report examines the costs and benefits of increased public access, and proposals to either extend or overturn the NIH policy. It looks at increased public access to research results through the lens of “openness,” with a particular interest in how greater openness affects the progress of science, the productivity of the research enterprise, the process of innovation, the commercialization of research, and economic growth.”

Federal Research Public Access Act 2012 Bill

FAQ

Points:

• NIH provides 32 billion dollars  in support of biomedical research each year.
• Over 2.4 million articles are now in PubMed Central.
• Every weekday, one half million users access the database, retrieving over 1 million articles.
• An estimated 25% of users are from universities, 17% are from companies, and 40% from the general public.