© 2001 by Oxford University Press
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 93, No. 23, 1772,
December 5, 2001
© 2001 Oxford University Press
NEWS |
U.S. Tops List of Most Published Clinical Cancer Research
The United States published more than one-third of all clinical cancer research published between 1995 and 1999, followed by Italy, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, and Germany, a recent analysis found (see Stat Bite).When examined by phase of trial published, the same analysis revealed that the United States and Canada combined published more phase I trials compared with the European Union. However, the European Union published more phase III trials.
Francesco Grossi, M.D., and Ornella Belvedere, M.D., of the University of Udine, Italy, and Riccardo Rosso, M.D., National Cancer Institute, Italy, presented the study at this year’s ECCO 11 European Cancer Conference in Lisbon.
The researchers combed MEDLINE records for all phase I, II, and III clinical oncology trials, limiting their search to studies reporting chemotherapy use, either alone or in combination with radiation therapy, surgery, immunotherapy, or hormone therapy. They found about 3,100 publications from more than 200 journals, and they assigned the country of origin based on the address provided by MEDLINE.
One of the questions they addressed was how the cooperative groups rank in clinical trial publications. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer came out on top, with the Southwest Oncology Group, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, and the Gynecologic Oncology Group next on the list.
The group also found the impact factor (the number of times a publication is cited over a 2-year period) for all of the papers. Canada (3.95), The Netherlands (3.76), and the United Kingdom (3.75) topped the list of publications with the highest mean impact factor. The United States was fifth on the list (3.51). When grouped by region, the mean impact factor of North American publications was higher compared with European publications (3.54 vs. 3.14).
The results may have filled in a gap in analysis of published research, but will these oncologists continue their studies of the medical literature? "No," Grossi said. "It’s been a big effort. Too big to do it again."
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||