Measuring the validity of early health technology assessment: Bibliometrics as a tool to indicate its scientific basis

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 70-75

  Lundberg, Jonas ^a   Brommels, Mats ^a,b   Skår, John ^a   Tomson, Göran ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b Medical Management Centre

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Biomedical; Biomedical research; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

BIBLIOMETRICS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT;

HEALTH CARE;

ARTICLE; BIBLIOMETRICS; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH SERVICE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY;

BIBLIOMETRICS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; SWEDEN; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 38549132335     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462307080099     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Carlsson P. Alert: New medical methods: Early assessment of cost, risk and benefit (in Swedish). Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen Läkemedelsverket SBU; 2000.
2. Chalmers I. Evaluating "payback" on biomedical research. Biomedical funding decisions should be audited. Br Med J. 2000;321:566.
3. Grant J, Cottrell R, Cluzeau F, Fawcett G. Evaluating "payback" on biomedical research from papers cited in clinical guidelines: Applied bibliometric study. Br Med J. 2000;320:1107-1111.
4. Grant J, Cottrell R, Fawcett G, Cluzeau F. Evaluating "payback" on biomedical research - Biomedical funding decisions should be audited - Authors reply. Br Med J. 2000;321:566.
5. International Working Party to Promote and Revitalise Academic Medicine. Academic medicine: The evidence base. Br Med J. 2004;329:789-792.
6. Lewison G. The definition of biomedical research subfields with title keywords and application to the analysis of research outputs. Res Eval. 1996;6:25-36.
7. Lundberg J. Lifting the crown - Citation z-score. J Informetrics. 2007;1:145-154.
8. Lundberg J, Fransson A, Brommels M, et al. Is it better or just the same? Article identification strategies impact bibliometric assessments. Scientometrics. 2006;66:183-197.
9. Moed HF, Debruin RE, Vanleeuwen TN. New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance - Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics. 1995;33:381-422.
10. Narin F, Hamilton KS. Bibliometric performance measures. Scientometrics. 1996;36:293-310.
11. Øvretveit J. A framework for quality improvement translation: Understanding the conditionality of interventions. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2004;30(Global Supplement):15-24.
12. Raymond C. Impact factors: Use and abuse in biomedical research. Anat Rec. 1999;257:54-57.
13. Schubert A, Glänzel W, Braun T. Relative citation rate: A new indicator for measuring the impact of publications. First National Conference with International Participation on Scientometrics and Linguistics of Scientific Text. Varna; 1983.
14. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. Br Med J. 1997;314:498-502.
15. Ugolini D, Casilli C, Mela GS. Assessing oncological productivity: Is one method sufficient? Eur J Cancer. 2002;38:1121-1125.
16. van Leeuwen TN. Second generation bibliometric indicators. Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University: Leiden; 2004:209.
17. van Raan AFJ. Measuring science - Capita selecta of current main issues. In: Glänzel W, Schmoch U, Moed HF, eds. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems. Dordrecht, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2004:19-50.
18. Vinkler P. Evaluation of some methods for the relative assessment of scientific publications. Scientometrics. 1986;10:157-177.