An audit of research productivity in clinical biochemistry revisited. Issue 4 (April 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Reynolds, Tim M; Wierzbicki, Anthony S
• Is Part Of: JRSM open. Volume 10:Issue 4(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-04
• Subjects: Chemical pathology -- metabolic medicine -- bibliometrics -- audit -- research -- workforce; Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Great Britain -- Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1177/2054270419844181
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2054-2704

Abstract

Objective: To investigate recent (2011–2015) research productivity in clinical biochemistry and compare it with a previous audit (1994–1998). Design: A retrospective audit of peer-reviewed academic papers published in Medline listed journals. Setting: UK chemical pathology/clinical biochemistry laboratories and other clinical scientific staff working in departments of pathology. Participants: Medically qualified chemical pathologists and clinical scientists. Main outcome measures: Publications were identified from electronic databases for individuals and sites. Analyses were conducted for individuals, sites and regional educational groups. Results: Clinical scientific staff numbers fell by 3.9% and medical staff by 17.4% from 1998 to 2015. Publication rates declined as publication count centiles rose between 1998 and 2015 (e.g. n = 5; 67th→84th centile; p < 0.001). A reduction in productivity was seen in medically qualified staff but less from clinical scientists. Regional staffing was 77 ± 37 (range 30–150) with university hospital laboratory staff accounting for 58 ± 19% (range 30–92%). Medically qualified staff comprised 20 ± 4% of staff with lowest numbers in some London regions. Publication rates varied widely with a median of 155 papers per region (range 98–1035) and 2.82 (1.21–8.62) papers/individual. The skew was attenuated, increasing the publication rate to 6.0 ± 2.73 papers (range 2.29–11.76)/individual after correction for the number of university hospital sites per region and was not related to numbers of trainees. High publication rates were associated with the presence of one highly research-active individual. Their activity correlated over their careers from recruitment to today (r 2 = 0.45; p = 0.05). The productivity rates of recent cohorts of trainees are inferior to previous cohorts. Conclusions: Research remains a minority interest in clinical biochemistry. A small and decreasing proportion of individuals publish 90% of the work. A reduction was seen in clinical scientist and especially medical research productivity. No correlation of training activity with research productivity was seen implying weak links with translational medicine.