UNASSIGNED: World Health Organization Collaborating Centres (WHOCCs) cooperate with the WHO on a range of strategic areas such as nursing, nutrition, mental health, chronic diseases, education, and health technologies, depending on their speciality areas. As of 2021, WHO has 47 CCs in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) collaborating on diverse areas. Four CCs in the EMR located in Egypt, Kingdom of Bahrain, Sudan, and Pakistan focus primarily on medical education (ME).
UNASSIGNED: The objective of this review of the literature is to describe the best practices in ME based on published research from the four WHOCCs in EMR. The secondary objective is to classify them based on the level of Kirkpatrick\'s model (KM) of educational outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: The contributions of WHOCCs are categorised in to five domains namely \"Curriculum Development and Course Design\", \"Student Assessment\", \"Quality, Accreditation, and Program Evaluation\", \"Teaching and Learning\" and \"Innovation in Medical Education\". Initial extraction yielded 96 articles for review, while the second level of analysis reduced the number of publications to 37 based on the date of publication within the last 5 years. Numerous best practices in ME emerged from the recently published works of these WHOCCs in the areas of learning and teaching, curriculum development, innovations in medical education, quality, and assessments in medical education. Literature from the WHOCCs on assessment and curriculum design are limited, possibly indicating opportunities for additional research.
UNASSIGNED: The researchers conclude that the WHOCCs in the EMR show transformational impact on all principal areas of research and at multiple levels.

The purpose of this study was to provide an evidence base for colorectal cancer research activity that might influence policy, mainly at the national level. Improvements in healthcare delivery have lengthened life expectancy, but within a situation of increased cancer incidence. The disease burden of CRC has risen significantly, particularly in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Research is key to its control and reduction, but few studies have delineated the volume and funding of global research on CRC. We identified research papers in the Web of Science (WoS) from 2007 to 2021, and determined the contributions of the leading countries, the research domains studied, and their sources of funding. We identified 62 716 papers, representing 5.7% of all cancer papers. This percentage was somewhat disproportionate to the disease burden (7.7% in 2015), especially in Eastern Europe. International collaboration increased over the time period in almost all countries except in China. Genetics, surgery and prognosis were the leading research domains. However, research on palliative care and quality-of-life in CRC was lacking. In Western Europe, the main funding source was the charity sector, particularly in the UK, but in most other countries government played the leading role, especially in China and the USA. There was little support from industry. Several Asian countries provided minimal contestable funding, which may have reduced the impact of their CRC research. Certain countries must perform more CRC research overall, especially in domains such as screening, palliative care and quality-of-life. The private-non-profit sector should be an alternative source of support.

The impact of medical research is usually judged on the basis of citations in the serial literature. A better test of its utility is through its contribution to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat illness. This study aimed to compare the parameters of lung cancer research papers with those cited as references in lung cancer CPGs from 16 countries, and the Cochrane Collaboration. These comparisons were mainly based on bibliographic data compiled from the Web of Science (WoS).
We examined 7357 references (of which 4491 were unique) cited in a total of 77 lung cancer CPGs, and compared them with 73,214 lung cancer papers published in the WoS between 2004 and 2018.
References used by lung CPGs were much more clinical than the overall body of research papers on this cancer, and their authors predominantly came from smaller northern European countries. However, the leading institutions whose papers were cited the most on these CPGs were from the USA, notably the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. The types of research cited by the CPGs were primarily clinical trials, as well as three treatment modalities (chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery). Genetics, palliative care and quality of life were largely neglected. The median time gap between papers cited on a lung CPG and its publication was 3.5 years longer than for WoS citations.
Analysis of the references on CPGs allows an alternative means of research evaluation, and one that may be more appropriate for clinical research than citations in academic journals. Own-country references show the direct contribution of research to a country\'s health care, and other-country references show the esteem in which this research has been held internationally.

Although smoking is declining in high-income countries, the relative burden from its most well-known consequence, lung cancer, continues to increase, especially in low-income countries. We examined the amount, types, geographical origins and funding of research on lung cancer as revealed by papers in the Web of Science over the 15 years, 2004-2018. The annual number of lung cancer research papers increased over the study period from 2,157 to 8,202, but as a percentage of all biomedical research in Western Europe and North America they only accounted for one-eighth of the percentage of the disease burden. Lung cancer increased its share of cancer research from 4.4% to 6.5%, mainly because of the greatly expanded output from China in 2014-2018 which published almost one-third of the world\'s total on a fractional count basis. For almost all other countries, their lung cancer presence in cancer research has declined over the 15 years. However, only 15% of the Chinese papers were co-authored internationally and its research was focussed on treatment rather than prevention. Support for lung cancer research is primarily from the government rather than charity. There is therefore an urgent need to increase support for lung cancer research, and for more international collaboration, especially in low-income countries where the disease burden is growing rapidly, and in neglected domains, such as screening and palliative care.