Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 2, 2026

Dried Blood Spot Collection of Health Biomarkers to Maximize Participation in Population Studies
Published on: January 28, 2014
[Research activity in clinical biochemistry]
Henrik L Jørgensen1, Birger Larsen, Peter Ingwersen
1Bispebjerg Hospital, Klinisk Biokemisk Afdeling, København N. hlj@dadlnet.dk
This study compared research activity in clinical biochemistry with other medical specialties in Denmark. It used publication and citation data from Medline and the Web of Science. Clinical biochemistry specialists published more and were cited more than matched controls. They also had higher PhD rates. These findings suggest a strong research culture in clinical biochemistry. The study supports the use of specialty-specific metrics in academic evaluations.
Area of Science:
- Clinical biochemistry research evaluation
- Medical specialty bibliometrics
Background:
Research productivity metrics are commonly applied in academic evaluations. These metrics help compare contributions across disciplines. However, few studies focus on clinical specialties. Clinical biochemistry is a medically oriented field. It combines clinical practice with laboratory science. Prior research has shown variability in publication rates. No prior work had resolved differences between specialties. This gap motivated a focused comparison in Denmark.
Purpose Of The Study:
This study aimed to evaluate research activity in clinical biochemistry. It compared this specialty with others in Denmark. The goal was to measure publication and citation rates. The study used a matched control group approach. It focused on physicians with defined titles. Data were drawn from national databases. The comparison included PhD and citation metrics. The study aimed to highlight specialty-specific trends.
Main Methods:
A national database provided physician records. Specialists in clinical biochemistry were identified. Each was matched with two control specialists. Matching was based on medical titles. Publication data were retrieved from Medline and Web of Science. Citation counts were also collected. The sample included 57 biochemistry specialists. A total of 114 control specialists were selected.
Main Results:
Clinical biochemistry specialists had 71 Medline papers per person. The control group averaged 51 papers per specialist. Citation counts were 1,844 for biochemistry versus 816 for controls. Sixty-one percent of biochemistry specialists held a PhD. This rate was higher than in the control group. Top H-indices were mostly from biochemistry. Eight of the top ten H-indices were from this specialty. The highest H-index reached 69 in this group.
Conclusions:
Clinical biochemistry specialists showed higher research output. They published more and were cited more than controls. This trend was especially strong among professors. The PhD rate was significantly higher in this group. These findings suggest a strong research culture. The study supports the use of bibliometric comparisons. It highlights the importance of specialty-specific metrics. The results may inform academic evaluation practices.
Frequently Asked Questions
Clinical biochemistry specialists published 71 Medline papers per person, compared to 51 in the control group.
Each clinical biochemistry specialist was matched with two others using the same medical title.
PhD rates were higher in clinical biochemistry (61%) than in the control group (25%).
The study used Medline and the Web of Science to count publications and citations.
The highest H-index among the top ten was 69, and eight of the top ten were in clinical biochemistry.
The study suggests that specialty-specific metrics may better reflect research activity in clinical biochemistry.
More Related Videos
07:40Preparation of Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cell Pellets and Plasma from a Single Blood Draw at Clinical Trial Sites for Biomarker Analysis
Published on: March 20, 2021
11:25Multi-step Preparation Technique to Recover Multiple Metabolite Compound Classes for In-depth and Informative Metabolomic Analysis
Published on: July 11, 2014
Related Concept Videos
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Blood Studies for Cardiovascular System I: Cardiac Biomarkers
The essential diagnostic tools for detecting myocardial necrosis and monitoring individuals suspected of having acute coronary syndrome (ACS) include:
Troponins
Troponins, particularly cardiac troponins I and T, are the most precise and sensitive markers of myocardial injury. They are detectable within 4-6 hours of myocardial injury and remain...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients
Introduction to Enzyme Kinetics
The experimenter can then plot the initial reaction rate or velocity (Vo) of a given trial against the substrate concentration ([S]) to obtain a graph of the reaction properties. For many enzymatic reactions involving a...
Blood Studies for Cardiovascular System II: CRP, Hcy, and Cardiac Natriuretic Peptide Markers
These markers indicate stress or strain on the heart muscle:
Natriuretic Peptides (BNP)
Cardiac myocytes produce these hormones in response to ventricular stretching...