ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2006
Origin and funding of the most frequently cited papers in medicine: database analysis.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Unusual Findings in Trials Evaluating Adjuncts to Scaling and Root Planing: Reporting Quality (Part 2).JDR clinical and translational research · 2022Pooled it
- Industry-funded versus non-profit-funded critical care research: a meta-epidemiological overview.Intensive care medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences: part 2: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on authorship, access to trial data, and trial registration and publication.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2010Pooled it
- Analysis of control arms in oncology randomised trials in Brazil: a cross-sectional study.BMJ oncology · 2025Article
- Industry Involvement and Transparency in the Most Cited Clinical Trials, 2019-2022.JAMA network open · 2023Review
- Geographical distribution of authorship for leading cardiothoracic surgery journals.Journal of cardiac surgery · 2022Article
- Research Landscape on Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease and Inflammation: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Pursuing impact in research: towards an ethical approach.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Characterizing hernia centers in the United States: what defines a hernia center?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Article
- The hidden influence of communities in collaborative funding of clinical science.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
- Article
- Cell-Based Therapies for Stroke: Are We There Yet?Frontiers in neurology · 2019Review
- Article
- Publication outcome of abstracts submitted to the American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2018Article
- What Did I Do? Practitioner Awareness of Ethical Issues in Scientific Publishing.International journal of therapeutic massage & bodywork · 2017Article
- Article
- Article
- Priority setting partnership to identify the top 10 research priorities for the management of Parkinson's disease.BMJ open · 2014Article
- Industry influence in evidence production.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate changes in the role of academics and the sources of funding for the medical research cited most frequently over the past decade.
designDatabase analysis. DATA SOURCES: Web of Knowledge database.
methodsFor each year from 1994 to 2003, articles in the domain of clinical medicine that had been cited most often by the end of 2004 were identified. Changes in authors' affiliations and funding sources were evaluated.
resultsOf the 289 frequently cited articles, most had at least one author with a university (76%) or hospital (57%) affiliation, and the proportion of articles with each type of affiliation was constant over time. Government or public funding was most common (60% of articles), followed by industry (36%). The proportion of most frequently cited articles funded by industry increased over time (odds ratio 1.17 per year, P = 0.001) and was equal to the proportion funded by government or public sources by 2001. 65 of the 77 most cited randomised controlled trials received funding from industry, and the proportion increased significantly over time (odds ratio 1.59 per year, P = 0.003). 18 of the 32 most cited trials published after 1999 were funded by industry alone.
conclusionAcademic affiliations remain prominent among the authors of the most frequently cited medical research. Such research is increasingly funded by industry, often exclusively so. Academics may be losing control of the clinical research agenda.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.