Tracing the path of 37,050 studies into practice across 18 specialties of the 2.4 million published between 2011-2020
- Harvard Medical School, Canada
- University of Toronto, Canada
Abstract
The absence of evidence to assess treatment efficacy partially underpins the unsustainable expenditure of the US healthcare system; a challenge exacerbated by a limited understanding of the factors influencing the translation of clinical research into practice. Leveraging a dataset of >10,000 UpToDate articles, sampled every 3 months between 2011-2020, we trace the path of research (37,050 newly added articles from 887 journals) from initial publication to the point-of-care, compared to the 2.4 million uncited studies published during the same time window across 18 medical specialties. Our analysis reveals substantial variation in how specialties prioritize/adopt research, with regards to fraction of literature cited (0.4%-2.4%) and quality-of-evidence incorporated. In 9 of 18 specialties, less than 1 in 10 clinical trials are ever cited. Further, case reports represent one of the most cited article types in 12 of 18 specialties, comprising nearly a third of newly-added references for some specialties (e.g., dermatology). Anesthesiology, cardiology, critical care, geriatrics, internal medicine, and oncology tended to favor higher-quality evidence. By modelling citations as a function of NIH department-specific funding, we estimate the cost of bringing one new clinical citation to the point-of-care as ranging from thousands to tens of thousands of dollars depending on specialty. The success of a subset of specialties in incorporating a larger proportion of published research, as well as high(er) quality of evidence, demonstrates the existence of translational strategies that should be applied more broadly. In addition to providing a baseline for monitoring the efficiency of research investments, we also describe new 'impact' indices to assess the efficacy of reforms to the clinical scientific enterprise.
Data availability
We used the citation lists of all UpToDate articles published between 2011-2020. While all these citation lists are/were publicly available, we recognize the amount of work and effort required to collate and pre-process this data. As such, we have made publicly available the entire dataset used in this analysis to all readers at: https://www.8mlabs.org/uptodate/rawdataset
Article and author information
Author details
Funding
The authors declare that there was no funding for this work.
Reviewing Editor
- Jennifer Flegg, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Version history
- Received: August 5, 2022
- Accepted: February 13, 2023
- Accepted Manuscript published: February 28, 2023 (version 1)
- Accepted Manuscript updated: March 1, 2023 (version 2)
- Version of Record published: April 19, 2023 (version 3)
Copyright
© 2023, Abdalla et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 469
- views
-
- 74
- downloads
-
- 1
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Tracing the path of 37,050 studies into practice across 18 specialties of the 2.4 million published between 2011-2020
eLife 12:e82498.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.82498
Further reading
-
- Immunology and Inflammation
- Medicine
Background:
Prinflammatory extracellular chromatin from neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) and other cellular sources is found in COVID-19 patients and may promote pathology. We determined whether pulmonary administration of the endonuclease dornase alfa reduced systemic inflammation by clearing extracellular chromatin.
Methods:
Eligible patients were randomized (3:1) to the best available care including dexamethasone (R-BAC) or to BAC with twice-daily nebulized dornase alfa (R-BAC + DA) for seven days or until discharge. A 2:1 ratio of matched contemporary controls (CC-BAC) provided additional comparators. The primary endpoint was the improvement in C-reactive protein (CRP) over time, analyzed using a repeated-measures mixed model, adjusted for baseline factors.
Results:
We recruited 39 evaluable participants: 30 randomized to dornase alfa (R-BAC +DA), 9 randomized to BAC (R-BAC), and included 60 CC-BAC participants. Dornase alfa was well tolerated and reduced CRP by 33% compared to the combined BAC groups (T-BAC). Least squares (LS) mean post-dexamethasone CRP fell from 101.9 mg/L to 23.23 mg/L in R-BAC +DA participants versus a 99.5 mg/L to 34.82 mg/L reduction in the T-BAC group at 7 days; p=0.01. The anti-inflammatory effect of dornase alfa was further confirmed with subgroup and sensitivity analyses on randomised participants only, mitigating potential biases associated with the use of CC-BAC participants. Dornase alfa increased live discharge rates by 63% (HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.01–2.61, p=0.03), increased lymphocyte counts (LS mean: 1.08 vs 0.87, p=0.02) and reduced circulating cf-DNA and the coagulopathy marker D-dimer (LS mean: 570.78 vs 1656.96 μg/mL, p=0.004).
Conclusions:
Dornase alfa reduces pathogenic inflammation in COVID-19 pneumonia, demonstrating the benefit of cost-effective therapies that target extracellular chromatin.
Funding:
LifeArc, Breathing Matters, The Francis Crick Institute (CRUK, Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust).
Clinical trial number:
-
- Medicine
Background:
Adverse effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have raised wide concerns. The association of PPIs with influenza is unexplored, while that with pneumonia or COVID-19 remains controversial. Our study aims to evaluate whether PPI use increases the risks of these respiratory infections.
Methods:
The current study included 160,923 eligible participants at baseline who completed questionnaires on medication use, which included PPI or histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA), from the UK Biobank. Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score-matching analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results:
Comparisons with H2RA users were tested. PPI use was associated with increased risks of developing influenza (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.12–1.56) and pneumonia (hazard ratio [HR] 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26–1.59). In contrast, the risk of COVID-19 infection was not significant with regular PPI use (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.99–1.17), while the risks of severe COVID-19 (HR 1.19. 95% CI 1.11–1.27) and mortality (HR 1.37. 95% CI 1.29–1.46) were increased. However, when compared with H2RA users, PPI users were associated with a higher risk of influenza (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.19–2.54), but the risks with pneumonia or COVID-19-related outcomes were not evident.
Conclusions:
PPI users are associated with increased risks of influenza, pneumonia, as well as COVID-19 severity and mortality compared to non-users, while the effects on pneumonia or COVID-19-related outcomes under PPI use were attenuated when compared to the use of H2RAs. Appropriate use of PPIs based on comprehensive evaluation is required.
Funding:
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82171698, 82170561, 81300279, 81741067, 82100238), the Program for High-level Foreign Expert Introduction of China (G2022030047L), the Natural Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars of Guangdong Province (2021B1515020003), the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (2022A1515012081), the Foreign Distinguished Teacher Program of Guangdong Science and Technology Department (KD0120220129), the Climbing Program of Introduced Talents and High-level Hospital Construction Project of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital (DFJH201923, DFJH201803, KJ012019099, KJ012021143, KY012021183), and in part by VA Clinical Merit and ASGE clinical research funds (FWL).
