SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • bibliometrics;
  • hematology;
  • medical oncology;
  • biomedical research;
  • meeting abstract;
  • scientific society

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. FUNDING SUPPORT
  8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  9. REFERENCES
  10. Supporting Information

BACKGROUND

Although hematology and oncology research is a highly relevant and evolving field, research contributions by Latin American countries, apart from Brazil, remain unclear.

METHODS

The authors performed a bibliometric analysis through a methodical search of the Latin American abstracts presented at 4 main hematology and oncology annual scientific meetings from 2000 to 2010. Latin American regional and national productivity was described through distribution and trend analyses; the subsequent percentage of full-text publications was also determined.

RESULTS

In total, 2871 abstracts were identified, of which 1972 abstracts (68.7%) were determined to be original Latin American research and were included in the analysis. Brazil produced by far the most abstracts, with 51.1% of the total, followed by Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Chile, and Uruguay. Together, these 6 countries accounted for 95.2% of the abstracts. Latin America had a positive trend, registering an average increase of 21.5 abstracts per year (P < .001). Significant positive growth trends were observed for Brazil, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay. Argentina and Uruguay were the most productive countries when considering the rate of abstract presentation per population. The full-text publication rate was 17.9%, and the median time to publication after presentation was 1 year. Brazil prevailed as the leading publishing country (60%), followed by Mexico, Argentina, Peru, Chile, and Cuba, all of which together published 96% of the full-text articles.

CONCLUSIONS

Hematology and oncology research is increasing in Latin America, but this contribution remains limited to a few countries. There is also a low rate of full-text articles derived from annual scientific meetings. More extensive research is recommended. Cancer 2014;120:1237–1245. © 2013 American Cancer Society.


INTRODUCTION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. FUNDING SUPPORT
  8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  9. REFERENCES
  10. Supporting Information

Latin America has recently emerged as a region in which scientific productivity has grown steadily over the past 20 years.[1] Scientific publications embody a direct and useful measurement of this phenomenon, reflecting national research strength and investment.[2, 3] Thus, Latin America's overall contribution to world scientific publications increased from 1.7% to 4.8% between 1990 and 2008, according to the International Statistical Institute (ISI) Web of Knowledge.[4]

Publications in the field of cancer research have traditionally originated from North America and Europe. Two recent worldwide bibliometric analyses have listed Brazil as an important Latin American contributor to worldwide production in this area, and Mexico was the only other country mentioned.[5, 6] However, each Latin American country in relation to hematology and oncology research production has not yet been clearly characterized.

Therefore, the objective of this article was to characterize a reference framework for scientific contribution to hematology/oncology that originated in and was specific to Latin America using bibliometric analysis. The main goal was to measure the number of abstracts presented by country at the main annual meetings (the American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO], the American Society of Hematology [ASH], the European Society of Medical Oncology [ESMO] and the European Cancer Organization [ESMO-ECCO], and the American Society for Radiation Oncology [ASTRO]) and to quantify each nation's specific and original contribution to regional output between 2000 and 2010. The secondary objectives included assessing the overall pattern of growth by trend analysis and determining the percentage of subsequent full-text publications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. FUNDING SUPPORT
  8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  9. REFERENCES
  10. Supporting Information

This project was conducted in 3 phases, starting with a methodical search of abstracts to identify those that led to subsequent full-text publications and to verify the collected information. The first phase consisted of a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of all abstracts published electronically (Web databases or uploaded booklets) regarding ASCO (http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Advanced+Search; accessed July 18, 2012, http://jco.ascopubs.org/search; accessed December 20, 2013), ESMO and ESMO-ECCO joint congresses (located in Annals of Oncology supplements for even years [available at: http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/supplemental] and in European Journal of Cancer supplements for odd years [available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13596349]), ASTRO (http://www.redjournal.org/content/astro_abstracts), and ASH (http://www.hematologylibrary.org/search) annual meeting proceedings from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2010.

Latin America was defined as the 24 countries of Central and South America and the Greater Antilles in which Latin-derived languages are spoken. The search strategy included the name of each Latin American country written in its local language and in English, filtered by timeframe. Working in pairs, 8 investigators (A.G., A.J.M., A.M.A., A.P.R., C.A.V., H.A.B., J.M.O., and P.C.Z.) organized all of the retrieved records by country into EndNote X3 reference manager (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY). Nationality was assigned according to the first author's corresponding affiliation, based on a previous work.[5]

The inclusion criteria required that abstracts either had to be written by a first author whose institutional affiliation was from any defined Latin American country, or ≥50% of the stated study population had to come from a Latin American country. The abstract was included for collaborative and phase 3 studies if ≥50% of the authors came from a Latin American-defined country. Updated abstracts presented at different meetings were included and recorded separately. Abstracts were required to be in a structured format, such as an electronic abstract or poster, a commented poster, an oral poster, or a report from a plenary session. If various records were retrieved as a consequence of multinational Latin American participation, then the abstract was only recorded once and was assigned to the first author's country of affiliation. Any disagreement was resolved through discussion and consensus with a third author (A.F.C.). Author characteristics, country of origin, type of presentation, population characteristics, topic/field of research, specific disease, intervention details (eg, chemotherapy, biologic therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, hormonal therapy), type of institution, and stated funding were extracted from every abstract that met inclusion criteria and loaded into a structured database using SPSS software (version 19.0; IBM SPSS Statistics, Chicago, Ill).

The second phase consisted of a cross-sectional analysis of those abstracts with results that had subsequently been published as full-text articles in any biomedical journal by searching with the Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com) and the Google web search engine (http://www.google.com) in July 2011. Search criteria involved the full title and the first author's last name (surname). The 2010 average 5-year impact factor for the corresponding journal that published the full-text was obtained from ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports (Thomson Reuters) (http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR; accessed July 31, 2011) and SCImago Journal and Country Rank (University of Granada, Madrid, Spain) (http://www.scimagojr.com/; accessed December 20, 2013). The number of citations of full-text articles, year of publication, and times to publication were recorded; the latter was estimated using the difference in years between when the abstract appeared and when the full-text article was published.

The third phase involved an independent investigator (L.R.) who assessed the accuracy and reliability of the recorded data using a sample of 10% of the abstracts that were included in the study, which were selected by random number assignment (http://www.random.org; accessed December 20, 2013). A maximum 10% data entry error was predefined as being acceptable to ensure internal validity. Detected errors were reported and then corrected.

Statistical Analysis

Variables of interest were described as either categorical (abstract type, full-text publication, and country), discrete (years and number of abstracts) or continuous (number of abstracts per population); the corresponding measurements of central tendency, absolute and relative frequencies, and dispersion measurements were calculated. For the full-text publication rate, the binomial distribution 95% confidence interval was estimated using the Wilson method. Temporal growth was analyzed by using trend analysis that involved regression modeling.[7] The absolute abstract presentation frequency per year was considered for each country and for the Latin American region. A population-adjusted annual abstract presentation rate (AAPR) also was calculated for each country using the following formula: AAPR = (number of abstracts presented per year)/(total population in million inhabitants per year). Corresponding annual population data reported by the World Development Indicators and Global Development Finance database (http://databank.worldbank.org/; accessed December 20, 2013) was obtained for the years covered by the study.[8]

Regression Modeling

Ordinary least squares with regression analyses were used to compare regional growth. Abstract presentation frequency and year of presentation were assumed as dependent and independent variables, respectively. Because a linear trend was observed on the graphic dispersion plot, linearity was assumed and modeled accordingly. Another regression was done for the top 6 countries using the annual-publications-per-population rate. The slope coefficient, R2, and corresponding P values were calculated for every curve.

Based on the second phase results, we estimated the subsequent frequency and time to publication by calculating full-text (total and per country) percentage and the time difference regarding the abstracts presented during the 11 years of the study.

All reported P values were 2 sided, and statistical significance was defined as a P value < .05. Statistical analyses, graphs, and maps were drawn using SPSS and ArcGIS software (version 10.0; ESRI, Redlands, Calif).

RESULTS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. FUNDING SUPPORT
  8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  9. REFERENCES
  10. Supporting Information

Figure 1 summarizes the study phases (screening and inclusion). From 2871 records, 899 abstracts (31.3%) were excluded, because 21% corresponded to non-Latin America-defined research and studies (which included at least 1 Latin American-stated coauthor but was conducted mainly by non-Latin American authors), 7.9% corresponded to abstracts presented by authors from “New Mexico, USA,” and 2.4% belonged to multinational Latin American abstracts that were counted only once according to the first Latin American author's affiliation. Thus, 1972 abstracts (68.7%) were included as Latin American research, most of which were presented as printed-only abstracts (61.5%), posters (36.4%), oral presentations (1.9%), and plenary session reports (0.3%). All abstracts recorded the affiliation, year, and type of presentation. No data were missing. Information from 332 randomly selected abstracts was verified during the third phase, and extraction errors were identified and corrected regarding 21 records (6.5%).

image

Figure 1. Study phases are illustrated, indicating their corresponding results. LA indicates Latin American; ASCO, American Society of Clinical Oncology; ESMO, European Society for Medical Oncology; ASTRO, American Society for Radiation Oncology; ASH, American Society of Hematology.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Latin American Scientific Productivity Distribution

Figure 2 ranks all abstracts presented during the decade in question by country; Brazil led (51.1% abstracts), followed by Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Chile, and Uruguay. These 6 nations (of the 24 Latin American countries) contributed 95.2% of the total production, and the first 5 had at least 1 abstract in each of the years of the study. The remaining abstracts came from 10 countries. No abstracts were submitted from Belize, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Haiti, Nicaragua, or Suriname. Full abstract counts by each Latin American country per year are available elsewhere (see online supporting information).

image

Figure 2. This is a geographic representation of the distribution of abstracts from Latin American countries involved in the studies published from 2000 to 2010.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Latin American Abstract Presentation Trends

In our analysis of abstract presentations, we observed that Latin America had significant, positive growth, with an average increase of 21.5 abstracts per year (Fig. 3A). Brazil's growth pattern most faithfully reflected that of Latin America; its abstract output increased by an average of 14.6 per year. Mexico and Peru (third and fourth place) had statistically significant growth: they increased their production by 2.5 and 1.3 abstracts per year, respectively. Although Argentina was the second most productive country, it did not exhibit an increasing trend based on our model, nor did Chile (in fifth place). The remaining 11 contributing countries, which made individual contributions that were <2% of the total, were graphed as a group. Although the results are not provided individually, Uruguay had an increasing trend (0.5 abstracts per year; R2 = 0.74; P = .01).

image

Figure 3. This is a graphic representation of regional and national trends from 2000 to 2010 with corresponding slope correlations (R2) and P values according to the linear model. (A) The absolute number of abstracts presented per year demonstrates increasing trends for Latin America and some countries. The first 5 countries are graphed individually. The remaining 11 countries are graphed as a group because their abstract contribution was <2% of the total. (B) The annual abstract presentation rate per million inhabitants per year is illustrated for the 5 countries that presented the most abstracts. Although the rankings changed, the trends were not significantly altered.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Latin American Abstract Presentation Trends by Population

In contrast to the previous indicator, Uruguay and Argentina presented the most abstracts by total population (Fig. 3B). Only Uruguay, Brazil, Peru, and Mexico maintained a statistically significant growth trend (0.15, 0.07, 0.04, and 0.03 increase in abstracts per million inhabitants each year, respectively), differing from the nonsignificant trends in Argentina and Chile.

Full-Text Publications

Three hundred fifty-three research reports (17.9%; 95% confidence interval, 16.3%-19.7%) from 10 Latin American countries were subsequently published through July 2011, indicating that 1 full-text article was published for every 5.6 abstracts presented (Table 1). The time to full-text publication ranged from 1 to 8 years, but the median was 1 to 2 years for 6 countries. Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Peru, Chile, and Cuba published 96% of the full-text articles. Conversely, Bolivia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, and Paraguay (each of which presented at least 1 abstract) had not published any full-text articles by the time of our search. Of the former oral presentations, 45.9% were subsequently published as full-text articles, as were 18.1% of the former posters, and 17% of those that were only published as abstracts. No plenary session abstracts were published.

Table 1. Number of Abstracts Published as Full-Text Articles and Their Related Characteristics Regarding 11 Latin American Countries From 2000 to 2010
CountryRanking According to Full-Text PublicationsTotal No. of Abstracts PresentedLater Publication of Abstract as a Full-Text Report: No. (%)aTime to Full-Text Publication: Median [Range], years
  1. Abbreviations: NP: Not publish.

  2. a

    Data are presented as the total number of full-text articles (the relative proportion of full-text articles from total abstracts is presented as a percentage).

Brazil11008212 (21)2 [0-7]
Mexico227954 (19.4)1 [0-8]
Argentina338743 (11.1)1 [0-7]
Chile45011 (22)1 [0-3]
Peru512210 (8.2)0.5 [0-3]
Cuba6279 (33.3)2 [0-3]
Venezuela7256 (24)1.5 [1-4]
Uruguay8323 (9.4)0 [0-7]
Colombia9253 (12)0.5 [0-1]
Costa Rica1042 (50)3.5 [2-5]
PanamaNP50 (0)NP
Total1972353 (17.9)1 [0-8]

DISCUSSION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. FUNDING SUPPORT
  8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  9. REFERENCES
  10. Supporting Information

The main findings of this study are that Latin American has had a growth in hematology and oncology research production and that this has mainly been driven by Brazil's significantly increasing production (to approximately 50% of the abstracts from 2000 to 2010). Brazil was followed (as expected) by Argentina and Mexico and by noteworthy contributions from Peru, Chile, and Uruguay. This agreed with previous reports regarding world cancer research distribution, in which Brazil ranked 11th as the only Latin American country to make a significant contribution among the top 15 places from the 71 countries included.[5] Remarkably, nearly 20% of the initially identified abstracts could be classified as non-Latin American original research but included at least 1 Latin American author, representing their participation mostly in multicenter globalized trials, but not corresponding to original Latin American research contribution.

Our research distribution findings were consistent with analyses in other areas of medicine acknowledging Brazil as the leading Latin American country in scientific article productivity, accounting for 32% to 42% of total regional contribution.[9-11] Similarly, Argentina and Mexico have followed, alternating in order according to the particular field of study.[9-12] Recently, Chile also has been appearing as an important contributor.[9-12] Combined scientific production from these countries reportedly has reached >85% of the articles from the Latin American region.[9, 11]

Latin America has experienced positive productivity in science, technology, and engineering. Although Latin America has lagged behind other worldwide regions, its number of scientific publications, by comparison, is increasing at a faster rate.[13] The 2010 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Science Report revealed that Latin America had the greatest relative regional growth of published and indexed articles in clinical medicine, superior to that of North America, Europe, and Asia.[14] Although bibliometric analysis has been used to report cancer research distribution, to our knowledge, no trend analysis has been published to date. Our regression model allowed us to identify a positive trend for the region, particularly for Brazil, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay. Although this was not true for countries like Argentina and Chile, our results have highlighted their sustained scientific participation.

A shift in order was observed when we contrasted our first analysis (considering abstract presentation by total population). Specifically, Uruguay, Argentina, and Peru were identified as highly productive given their smaller populations. Micheli et al reported similar shifts in oncology research distribution per country worldwide when the analysis was adjusted by population, impact factor, or gross domestic product.[6] Although no population-adjusted data in this particular field are available for Latin America, Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina had the most publications by population in 2009 registered in the Science Citation Index, thereby matching our results.[15]

Although professional meetings provide important opportunities for exhibiting scientific results, full-text publications are accepted as the most consistent way of reporting study findings, because information regarding sample size, treatment effects, and authors may subsequently change,[16, 17] and abstracts may not be indexed in databases like MEDLINE.[18] The full-text publication rate derived from meeting abstracts has been estimated at 45% to 50% using meta-analytical techniques, with a median time to publication of 19.6 months.[18, 19] Factors that have been suggested as publication predictors include “positive” or “any significant” results, results arising from randomized or controlled clinical trials, orally presented work, high-quality abstracts, and funding.[18, 20] Compared with these data, a low subsequent publication rate was observed, but the median publication time was similar. Brazil's full-text publication rate agreed with that of Brazilian abstracts presented at ASCO meetings (16.9%; with a 13.5-month median time to publication).[21, 22] Orally presented abstracts appeared to be published more frequently as full-text articles; however, our current report was not aimed at publication determinants.

In this study, we evaluated an indirect outcome to reflect current Latin American research production regarding hematology and oncology; as such, this involved some pitfalls and limitations. Our inclusion criteria could have meant that the results underestimated defined Latin American production by excluding research work, like work presented at other types of international meetings or at local Latin American meetings, abstracts that were rejected after having been submitted to meetings but were included in our study, and abstracts that were available in nonelectronic format (eg, ASH abstracts from 2000 to 2003 were excluded). Nonetheless, our abstract selection criteria were uniformly applied to all countries and databases, thus assuring comparable and standardized results. Moreover, each country contributed fewer than 50 abstracts annually before 2004 (2.5% of abstracts presented). Finally, our definition of Latin American work was based on the first author's affiliation from a previous work[5] and was restricted to more than half of all Latin American investigators. This may have underestimated relevant Latin American authors who did not reach 50% participation in the revised works. However, the current analysis was aimed at identifying research that was specific and original to Latin America rather than multinational participation in globalized trials. This phenomenon would require further characterization of Latin American authors from analyzed abstracts, which was out of the scope of the current report.

The reported publication index was acquired through a search using Google Scholar (a single, open-access engine). The accuracy of Google Scholar in locating relevant medical literature reportedly is equal or even superior to that of other widely used biomedical databases.[23, 24] The subsequent full-text publication rate was assessed from a search in July 2011, which may have underestimated publications from the most recent work, especially for the last year studied. However, more than the established median time to full-text publication had already passed for abstracts before 2009 by the time the search was done.[18] One of the study's aims was to estimate the Latin American region's proportional contribution regarding all abstracts presented at annual meetings. Such data, however, were not available.

Our study's major strengths lie in having performed a search using systematic methodology regarding annual meetings in the field of hematology and oncology research, which are considered the most representative.[21] Our findings were consistent with available results from groups working in the same research field, thereby supporting the validity of the results, and a predefined strategy was planned to evaluate and correct the quality of the information so retrieved.

There may be various possible explanations for our current findings. First, an important aspect is investment in research and development, which is directly proportional to each country's scientific production.[25-27] In general, Latin American countries' gross domestic investment in research and development represents 0.1% to 1% of the gross domestic product. This is relatively small compared with the 2% to 3% of gross domestic product invested by Canada, the United States, Japan, and Europe.[8, 25] Furthermore, cancer research in these North American and European countries relies importantly on government funding sources.[28] Similarly, Brazil's research productivity is concentrated in the public sector, which produces greater than 80% of its scientific publications.[3, 29] Because this is not the case for other Latin American countries, we encourage them to replicate this model. Other explanations may lie in the obstacles that Latin American researchers face regarding appropriate environments for basic and clinical research, including lack of adequate epidemiological cancer data; insufficient quantity and training of cancer specialists and research personnel; few established cooperative research initiatives and networks; English-language barriers; and a lower probability of publishing in relevant science, technology, and engineering-indexed journals.[25, 30-32]

Multiple expert meetings[32, 33] have convened to provide guidance on overcoming these barriers by stating priorities for health research, which primarily include the following: The first priority is to promote low-cost practical research expected to meet the primary economic and social concerns for Latin American health systems. Cancer research needs, therefore, should be focused on diseases that have a high impact on morbidity and mortality in Latin American countries, based mainly on epidemiological registries. The second priority is to enhance collaboration and networking among oncology academic institutions, the pharmaceutical industry, governmental agencies, and society. Currently, multiple cooperative efforts have been started (Table 2), some of them with support from experienced cooperative groups in Europe and North America. Up until 2013, the Latin American Clinical Oncology Research Group (LACOG) has successfully integrated 47 investigators from 39 research sites in 10 Latin American countries.[34] Thus, as the impact and relevance of cooperative Latin American teams grows, we encourage local research groups to participate, facilitating funding and resource obtainment, to become highly productive. The third priority is to promote human-resource development in hematology and oncology plus research infrastructure and capabilities. This can be enhanced by investigator mentoring, scholarships, and timed training visits to experienced cancer research centers. Research can also be reinforced with the guidance of local regulatory agencies, which can help teams improve the quantity and quality of their scientific production.

Table 2. Main Regional and National Cooperative Groups in Hematology and Oncology in Latin America
Group and LocationWeb Page
  1. Abbreviations: NA, not available.

Regional 
Latin American Clinical Oncology Research Group (LACOG-GLICO)http://www.glicopesquisa.com.br
Grupo Cooperativo Latinoamericano de Hemostasia y Trombosis (CLAHT)http://www.claht.org.ar
Grupo Cooperativo Iberoamericano de Medicina Transfusional (GCIAMT)http://gciamtboletin.blogspot.com
Red Latino Americana de Neuro-Oncología (RedLANO)http://www.redlano.org
Sociedad Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Oncología Médica (SLACOM)http://www.slacom.org
Sociedad Oncológica Centroamericana y del Caribe (SOCECAR)NA
Argentina 
Grupo Argentino de Tratamiento de la Leucemia Aguda (GATLA)http://www.gatla.org.ar
Grupo Argentino de Investigación Clínica en Oncología (GAICO)http://www.gaico.org.ar
Grupo Cooperativo Argentino de Hemostasia y Trombosis (CAHT)http://www.grupocaht.com
Grupo Oncológico Cooperativo del Sur (GOCS)http://www.gocsbhb.com.ar
Brazil 
Grupo Brasileiro Cooperativo de Pesquisa em Oncologia Clínica (GBOC)http://www.gboc.com.br
Grupo Brasileiro de Estudos do Câncer de Mama (GBECAM)http://www.gbecam.org.br
Grupo Cooperativo Brasileiro de Síndrome Mielodisplásica em Pediatria (BCG-MDS-PED)NA
Instituto Brasileiro de Pesquisa em Câncer (IBPC)http://www.ibpcancer.org.br
Chile 
Grupo Oncológico Cooperativo Chileno de Investigación (GOCCHI)http://www.gocchi.org
Colombia 
Grupo Cooperativo Colombiano para la Investigación Clínica y Molecular del Cáncer (ONCOLGroup)http://www.ficmac.org
Mexico 
Grupo Cooperativo Mexicano para la Investigación del Cáncer de Ovario y Tumores Ginecológicos (GICOM)NA
Grupo Cooperativo Mexicano para el Estudio de la Leucemia (GRUMELA)NA
Peru 
Grupo de Estudios Clínicos Oncológicos Peruano (GECOPERU)http://gecoperu.org
Uruguay 
Grupo Oncológico Cooperativo Uruguayo (GOCUR)http://www.sompu.org.uy/05gocur.php
Grupo Cooperativo Uro-Oncológico (GCU)NA
Venezuela 
Grupo Cooperativo Hemato-Oncológico Multidisciplinario Pediátrico Venezolano (GHOMPV)NA
Grupo Cooperativo Instituto Venezolano de los Seguros Sociales (GC-IVSS)NA

The current results provide a platform for exploring this field in greater detail. We would expect such a characterization to be relevant for hematology and oncology specialists, researchers, the pharmaceutical industry, government agencies, and related contributors, because it points to Latin America as an improving region for hematology and oncology research. Our results also appear to provide a basis for studying scientific productivity determinants in depth and possible solutions for increasing Latin American research productivity and the full-text publication rate in this field.

Conclusions

Hematology and oncology research is increasing in Latin America; however, the region's contribution is limited to a few countries (just 6 of the 24 countries studied provided 95.2% of the productivity from 2000 to 2010), with Brazil's scientific productivity being especially highlighted. Latin American participation in non-Latin American original research also was noted. The foregoing represents the first characterization of the whole region and points to Latin America as a new target for potential improvement of hematology and oncology research. Priorities for strengthening hematology and oncology research have been identified and are currently under development. Enhancing funding, broadening awareness of cancer epidemiology, building up research capabilities, and networking among investigators are critical success factors for Latin American production in hematology and oncology research. More extensive analysis is needed to identify regional and local problems and to highlight potential areas for improvement.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. FUNDING SUPPORT
  8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  9. REFERENCES
  10. Supporting Information

Supporting Information

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. FUNDING SUPPORT
  8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  9. REFERENCES
  10. Supporting Information

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
cncr28539-sup-0001-SuppInfo.pdf40KSupplementary Information

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.