ReseaRch Quality assuRance foR the futuRe a ... - Lund University

Panel 8 – medicine | clinical
The quality and quantity has continuously been increasing and is now at
the absolutely highest international level. The other group leaders (other
than Lernmark and Groop) are still miles behind or have stabilized at a
good but not top level. The unit can be evaluated as outstanding. The unit
has indeed all the potential to solve major questions in the genetic etiology
of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Funding is impressive (21 514 230 is
the largest of any unit of clinical sciences in Malmö), as is international
collaboration and expertise in insulin action and secretion. The publication
record is truly impressive (Science, N Engl J Med, Nature genetics etc).
There is also close national collaboration with the major epidemiological
projects which are ongoing in the Malmö region. Clinical mechanistic
physiological investigation in humans could perhaps be expanded.
3.5 Epidemiology
This unit has two areas of research, one dealing with cardiovascular
epidemiology with two researchers and one with nutrition epidemiology
also with two research positions. The quality of publications is good
European/Scandinavian level. The researchers do not appear to be last
authors but often second authors which are sometimes the preference of
senior authors. Most of the funding of the cardiovascular epidemiology
group is from the faculty (864 008 out of 1 146 434). We cannot find the
budgetary information of the nutrition epidemiology group. Our overall
assessment of this unit is good.
3.6 Family and Community Medicine
According to the description there are four lines of research within this
department.
• Hakansson et al. This group has published a number of papers on a
wide variety of topics. The group does not seem to be much focussed.
The support is very limited.
• Rastam et al: This group consists of only one person and has reasonable
external funding. There are publications on the Skaraborg project.
The question is why this group is not working more closely together
with other groups in Malmö like Groop.
• Merlo et al seem to have good funding while no data on funding
was provided for the group of Ostergren et al. It was not easy for this
reviewer to judge if these two groups published papers.
247