Takes 17 years for research conclusions to be applied to medical practice

Research-to-practice gap

The average time it takes for new medical research evidence to be adopted into routine clinical practice.

Perplexity AI Dec 2025

The following breakdown details where this number comes from, what it actually means, and why the process is so slow.

1. The Origin of the Statistic

The figure comes from a widely cited study by Balas and Boren (2000). They analyzed the time it took for research to travel from the "bench" (laboratory) to the "bedside" (patient care).

Their findings were startling: * It took an average of 17 years for research evidence to reach clinical practice. * Even after that time, only 14% of research evidence was fully implemented.

This statistic was later re-examined and popularized by a 2011 paper in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine titled "The answer is 17 years, what is the question?".[1]

2. It's Not Just Stubbornness (The Pipeline Problem)

The 17-year lag is not typically caused by a doctor staring at new data and refusing to believe it for two decades. Instead, it is a systemic delay caused by the complex pipeline of medical knowledge. The 17 years generally breaks down into these phases: * Prioritization & Funding: Getting approval and money to study a problem. * Conducting Research: Years of clinical trials and data collection. * Publication: The time it takes for a study to be peer-reviewed and published (often 1–2 years). * Synthesis: One study isn't enough. It takes years for enough studies to accumulate to form a "body of evidence." * Guidelines: Medical boards (like the AHA or ADA) must review the evidence and update official Clinical Guidelines. * Dissemination: The new guidelines must be taught to doctors via conferences, textbooks, and updated protocols. * Implementation: Finally, the doctor must adopt the new habit in their daily workflow.

3. The "De-Adoption" Problem (stopping current practice)

The user's phrasing ("change his mind") touches on a related and difficult phenomenon called de-adoption or "medical reversal." This is the process of stopping a practice that has been proven ineffective or harmful (e.g., prescribing antibiotics for viral infections).

Research suggests de-adoption can sometimes be even harder than adoption. Once a medical practice is ingrained as a standard of care, it creates "clinical inertia." Doctors may continue using outdated treatments because: * Habit: They have performed the procedure for 20 years. * Patient Expectation: Patients "expect" a certain pill or test. * Fear of Malpractice: Doing "something" often feels legally safer than doing nothing, even if the "something" is outdated.

4. Is the Number Still Accurate?

The "17-year" statistic is now considered by some experts to be an oversimplification, though it remains a useful benchmark for the slowness of the system. * Some things are faster: Breakthroughs with immediate, obvious benefits (like the COVID-19 vaccines or a cure for Hepatitis C) are adopted much faster than 17 years. * Some things are slower: Complex behavioral changes (like hand-washing protocols or diet counseling) can take decades to fully saturate a healthcare system.

Summary Table

Statistic	17 Years
Source	Balas & Boren (2000); Morris et al. (2011)
What it measures	Time from original research publication to routine clinical use.
Common Myth	That it takes a doctor 17 years to agree with a new fact.
Reality	It takes 17 years for the medical system (textbooks, guidelines, insurance codes, hospital protocols) to fully integrate new science.

Verdict: The statement is true in spirit regarding the system, but false regarding the individual. A doctor doesn't take 17 years to change their mind; the medical establishment takes 17 years to change the rules the doctor follows.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20