Abstract
There is general agreement that biomedical clusters benefit from positive externalities, based on a constant exchange of information about R&D, ideas or talent, which improves business opportunities for the firms. The aim of the present study is to analyse the clinical research results obtained with two drug-coated stents (Cypher, Cordis, and Taxus, Boston Scientific). We have analysed the existing medical literature on each of the products. We created a score based on article quality, journal impact factor and publication trimester. Three rankings were obtained: score by author and product, cumulative score by product (period 2001–2005) and score by place of publication. Globally, Cypher yielded a higher publication score than Taxus (847,351 vs 507,764), with more published studies (188 vs 106) and fewer centres (39 vs 46). The effect proved stable over time. The average score per study was higher for Cypher (11,251 vs 7,460). In sum, we have been unable to demonstrate that belonging to a biomedical cluster exerts a significant influence over the clinical development of a new product. In our opinion, further examples should be found in the biomedical field to determine whether these findings can be generalized.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.