4.5 News Item

Future research demands of the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) and its member societies

期刊

UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL
卷 7, 期 6, 页码 859-863

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0142064X19858164

关键词

Gastroenterology; specialist; research; demand; questionnaire

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims The purpose of this study was to initiate and stimulate collaborative research efforts to support United European Gastroenterology Federation (UEG) member societies facilitating digestive health research in European on the one hand and, on the other hand, to increase EU-funded digestive health research by providing evidence and advice to funding bodies on priority areas. The UEG Research Committee initiated a survey of the current and future research interests of each individual UEG ordinary member society (specialist societies). Methods A questionnaire was sent by mail to 17 UEG ordinary member societies asking them to specify research demands related to the most urgent medical need including basic science research, translational research, clinical research, patient management research and research on disease prevention, in an open fashion but with limited word count. Results The responses from 13 societies were analysed in a semi-quantitative and in a qualitative way, and were clustered into five domains with two aspects each that were consented and shared between three and seven of the responding 13 societies. These clusters resemble topics such as 'Hot topics' (e.g. life-style, nutrition, microbial-host interaction), Biomarkers (genetic profiling, gut-brain interaction), Advanced technology (artificial intelligence, personalised medicine), Global research tools (bio-banking, EU trials), and Medical training (education, prevention). Conclusion The generated topic list allows both collaboration between individual specialist societies as well as initiating and fostering future research calls at the EU level and beyond when approaching stakeholders.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据