Case study

Mapping the global expert landscape for a complex respiratory mechanism.

at a glance

The Challenge

Identifying experts for a therapy targeting a respiratory mechanism spanning multiple respiratory diseases in a scientific landscape heavily distorted by COVID-19 publication activity.

Our Approach

Multi-layered literature analysis, expert interviews, and evaluation of more than 600 markers of scientific influence across the global respiratory community.

The Outcome

A defensible global expert landscape enabling the client team to prioritise expert engagement with confidence.
01
The situation

A global pharmaceutical company was developing a therapy targeting a specific biological mechanism associated with a serious respiratory event.

The mechanism was present across a number of respiratory conditions not typically studied together as a single clinical field, including several well-established respiratory disorders and SARS-CoV-2.

The client team needed to identify approximately 250 suitable experts worldwide to support scientific engagement and insight generation across key markets: China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The objective was a clear and defensible understanding of the expert landscape around the respiratory event itself, the underlying biological mechanism, and the broader group of respiratory conditions associated with that mechanism.

Find out more about our identification process
02
The challenge

The scientific landscape presented several unusual difficulties.

Fragmented scientific communities

Although the biological mechanism linked several respiratory conditions, there was no single scientific community examining them together.

Immunology researchers were studying the underlying mechanism; respiratory clinicians tended to focus on individual diseases. No clearly defined field spanned all of them.

A distorted publication landscape

One of the conditions linked to the mechanism was SARS-CoV-2.

Over the previous five years, most conditions within the group had generated 4,000 to 5,000 scientific publications. SARS-CoV-2 had generated more than 400,000.

Relying heavily on publication analysis across related conditions would have produced a landscape dominated by SARS-CoV-2 authors, many of whom were not specialists in the underlying mechanism or the broader condition group. Excluding SARS-CoV-2 research entirely would have removed a substantial body of relevant scientific activity.

Defining the relevant expert community

The client faced a fundamental question: which experts genuinely understood the mechanism and the associated respiratory event, rather than simply being highly visible in one of the related conditions?

Answering that required building a new understanding of the scientific landscape rather than relying on conventional publication metrics. Without this contextual work, expert identification would likely have been dominated by SARS-CoV-2 publication activity, potentially obscuring the clinicians and researchers most relevant to the underlying mechanism.

03
our approach

Kendle Healthcare conducted a structured analysis of the expert landscape across several interconnected scientific domains.

Kendle Healthcare conducted a structured analysis of the expert landscape across several interconnected scientific domains.

3.1

Multi-layered literature analysis

Four complementary literature analyses were conducted: publications examining the biological mechanism; publications addressing the respiratory event; and publications addressing the broader respiratory condition group both including and excluding SARS-CoV-2-related research.

This structure allowed the team to identify patterns of influence while avoiding distortion from the unusually large SARS-CoV-2 publication volume.

3.2

Analysis of expert influence

Our scoring models are developed specifically for each project. Large-scale KOL platforms typically apply the same scoring framework across all disease areas. Our analytical frameworks are designed only after desk research and expert interviews have revealed how influence actually operates within the relevant scientific field. The indicators used to assess expertise reflect the realities of that specific community, not generic metrics.

Beyond publication analysis, the project examined a wide range of influence indicators:

  • Clinical guidelines and consensus statements

  • Professional societies and specialist working groups

  • Journal editorial boards

  • Congress faculty and conference presentations

  • Clinical trial investigator networks

  • Scientific awards and emerging researcher indicators

In total, 625 markers of influence were included, and every relevant KOL interaction activity within them captured and analysed.

Each expert’s involvement was scored using contextual criteria. Conference activity, for example, was assessed based on the importance of the conference, the relevance of the presentation to the client’s scientific focus, the type of session, and whether major clinical trial data was reported.

3.3

Expert interviews

A series of interviews were conducted with clinicians and researchers working in the respiratory event, the biological mechanism, and the associated conditions. The interviews explored which researchers were most respected within each area, how much awareness existed across the different conditions, and which conferences, guidelines, and scientific forums carried the most weight.

These discussions provided important context that desk research alone could not have captured.

04
what we found

A finding that desk research could not have surfaced.

One interview produced an insight that changed the shape of the project entirely.
An interviewee identified a small international working group and private annual symposium dedicated specifically to the biological mechanism and linked respiratory conditions. It was the only identifiable scientific forum that viewed the therapy area as a unified field.

Despite three months of extensive desk research and analysis of hundreds of scientific markers, this group had not been visible, and the client had been unaware of its existence.

This illustrated the limits of relying solely on publication databases and formal scientific markers. It also reinforced why analytical frameworks need to be adapted to the realities of each specific scientific landscape.

The discovery reshaped the understanding of the expert landscape. The leader of the working group came from a clinical specialty the client had not originally identified as a priority, illustrating how contextual analysis can reveal influential experts outside expected disciplines.

05
The output

The project delivered a detailed expert landscape comprising 433 potential experts worldwide.

For each expert, the client received structured intelligence including:

  • Institutional and professional information

  • Research interests and clinical specialty

  • Qualitative insights from peer recognition

  • Detailed scoring across multiple indicators of influence

  • Involvement in guidelines, trials, conferences, and scientific organisations

  • Digital and professional visibility

0

Potential experts worldwide.

The analysis also included network analysis of expert relationships by country and specialty, country-level expert landscape summaries, analysis of scientific influence across the different respiratory conditions, and synthesis of insights from the expert interviews.

The Outcome

The project gave the client a clear and defensible understanding of a highly complex expert landscape. It revealed how expertise was distributed across different respiratory conditions, which experts bridged multiple scientific communities, and where influence was concentrated within specific countries and specialties.

The client team moved forward with greater confidence in their expert prioritisation and engagement planning.

We know how difficult it is to identify opinion leaders in this area. It's extremely challenging. This is an amazing piece of work.

The client has since commissioned five further projects from Kendle Healthcare.

Discuss a similar challenge

Joe Kendle

Client Services Director

Joe is a cornerstone of Kendle Healthcare, embodying mastery, experience, insight and integrity in everything he delivers.

With more than ten years of experience in KOL Identification and Mapping, Joe’s relationship with Kendle Healthcare began at its foundation. As a university student, he worked on the company’s very first project, gaining early and lasting insight into its standards, values and ambition. That continuity gives him a deep understanding of not just what we do, but why we do it.

After six years in secondary education, Joe returned to healthcare consultancy with a distinctive skill set. His teaching background sharpened his ability to communicate complex ideas with clarity and calm authority. Clients value his measured approach, thoughtful questioning and ability to bring structure to complexity.

Joe’s particular expertise lies in translating technology into meaningful strategic insight. He has been instrumental in advancing the use of Network Mapping within KOL engagement, ensuring that influence is understood in context rather than in isolation. His work combines analytical rigour with practical application, turning data into decisions clients can act on with confidence.

Beyond his professional role, Joe demonstrates integrity through sustained philanthropic commitment. He has raised significant funds for charity through endurance challenges, reflecting resilience, discipline and a strong sense of social responsibility.

Neil Kendle

Managing Director

Neil is more than Managing Director. He is the driving force behind Kendle Healthcare’s standards of mastery, insight and integrity.

With more than three decades of healthcare consultancy experience, Neil brings a depth of understanding that only time and immersion can build. His background as both a Medical Science Liaison and a Brand Manager gives him a rare dual perspective. He understands the priorities of medical professionals and the pressures facing commercial and marketing teams, allowing him to bridge strategy and science with credibility and clarity.

Neil has helped shape the modern healthcare consultancy landscape. He pioneered many of the industry’s established approaches to opinion leader identification and engagement, setting benchmarks that others have since followed. His work has always been grounded in rigorous thinking, ethical practice and a commitment to doing things properly, not simply quickly.

Under his leadership, Kendle Healthcare has earned its reputation for thoughtful strategy, precise execution and trusted partnerships. Clients value his judgement because it is informed by experience, sharpened by insight and guided by integrity.

Outside of work, Neil is a dedicated golfer, a passion he has pursued for more than 25 years. The discipline and focus the game demands mirror the qualities he brings to his professional life: patience, precision and a long term view.