The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research.
Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data
Literature review of heterogeneous descriptive and bibliometric studies without standardized quantitative synthesis (graded by design analogy for non-clinical research).
PubMed 22179294 · doi:10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180
What was done
The authors conducted a literature review of published papers that described and quantified time lags occurring during the health research translation process, specifically examining studies evaluating timeline metrics in the development of health interventions.
What was found
The review identified 23 papers. The abstract reports no pooled quantitative time estimates, noting that few studies were directly comparable because they utilized disparate measures, assessed different milestones and interventions, and evaluated different start and end time points.
Why it matters
Commonly cited figures for research translation lag (such as 17 years) rely on highly heterogeneous methodologies, meaning current time-lag literature provides limited actionable guidance for R&D prioritization or knowledge transfer policy.
Limits
The abstract does not report search parameters, inclusion criteria details, or formal risk-of-bias assessment. High methodological variation across the 23 included studies precluded direct comparison or pooled meta-analysis.
Cited by
- context It takes an average of 17 years for research findings to be implemented into clinical medical practice.