Academic Impact of a Public Electronic Health Database: Bibliometric Analysis of Studies Using the General Practice Research Database

BACKGROUND: Studies that use electronic health databases as research material are getting popular but the influence of a single electronic health database had not been well investigated yet. The United Kingdom's General Practice Research Database (GPRD) is one of the few electronic health databases publicly available to academic researchers. This study analyzed studies that used GPRD to demonstrate the scientific production and academic impact by a single public health database. METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS: A total of 749 studies published between 1995 and 2009 with 'General Practice Research Database' as their topics, defined as GPRD studies, were extracted from Web of Science. By the end of 2009, the GPRD had attracted 1251 authors from 22 countries and been used extensively in 749 studies published in 193 journals across 58 study fields. Each GPRD study was cited 2.7 times by successive studies. Moreover, the total number of GPRD studies increased rapidly, and it is expected to reach 1500 by 2015, twice the number accumulated till the end of 2009. Since 17 of the most prolific authors (1.4% of all authors) contributed nearly half (47.9%) of GPRD studies, success in conducting GPRD studies may accumulate. The GPRD was used mainly in, but not limited to, the three study fields of "Pharmacology and Pharmacy", "General and Internal Medicine", and "Public, Environmental and Occupational Health". The UK and United States were the two most active regions of GPRD studies. One-third of GRPD studies were internationally co-authored. CONCLUSIONS: A public electronic health database such as the GPRD will promote scientific production in many ways. Data owners of electronic health databases at a national level should consider how to reduce access barriers and to make data more available for research

Top 10 journals ranked by number of GPRD studies published between 1995 and 2009.

<p>Top 10 journals ranked by number of GPRD studies published between 1995 and 2009.</p

National share of internationally co-authored SCI studies and GPRD studies by countries.

<p>National share of internationally co-authored publications was calculated by the number of internationally co-authored work divided by the number of GPRD studies or SCI studies of the given country. As comparison reference values, the national share of internationally co-authored nationwide publications published in 2009 and indexed in the Scientific Citation Index Expand of given countries are plotted and abbreviated as SCI studies (Accessed 12 May 2010.).</p

Number of authors and GPRD studies with their cumulative percentage as grouped by number of authored GPRD studies published between 1995 and 2009.

<p>Number of authors and GPRD studies with their cumulative percentage as grouped by number of authored GPRD studies published between 1995 and 2009.</p

Top 10 fields of study ranked by number of GPRD studies published between 1995 and 2009.

<p>Top 10 fields of study ranked by number of GPRD studies published between 1995 and 2009.</p

Citation counts of GPRD studies published between 1995 and 2009.

a<p>Citation counts were calculated as numbers of articles that citing GPRD studies.</p

Cumulative numbers of GPRD studies compared with epidemiologic studies using public electronic health database in Canada, France and Germany.

<p>The cumulative numbers of studies published between 1995 and 2009 (solid data points) were fitted well with a power growth model (solid line). The predicted cumulative numbers of GPRD studies were then extrapolated by the fitted power model (hollow data points with short dashed line). The extrapolation should be interpreted cautiously under assumption. Data source: Germany: studies using German health insurance medication claims data <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0021404#pone.0021404-Hoffmann1" target="_blank">[8]</a>; France: studies using French reimbursement databases <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0021404#pone.0021404-MartinLatry1" target="_blank">[9]</a>; Canada: studies using Manitoba and Saskatchewan administrative health care utilization databases <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0021404#pone.0021404-Tricco1" target="_blank">[10]</a>.</p