ArticleJAMA2009
Life-science research within US academic medical centers.
Article in JAMA, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medicine Meets Science: The Imperative of Scientific Research and Publishing for Physician-Scientists.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025Article
- Identifying translational science through embeddings of controlled vocabularies.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Article
- Multivariable analysis of factors associated with USMLE scores across U.S. medical schools.BMC medical education · 2019Article
- Protecting Ideas: Ethical and Legal Considerations When a Grant's Principal Investigator Changes.Science and engineering ethics · 2016Review
- Decline of clinical research in academic medical centers.Neurology · 2015Article
- How basic scientists help the pharmaceutical industry market drugs.PLoS biology · 2013Article
- Important steps to improve translation from medical research to health policy.Journal of translational medicine · 2013Article
- Article
- Survey of the attitudes of nigerian ophthalmologists to and resources for ophthalmic research.Middle East African journal of ophthalmology · 2012Article
- Ethics and technology transfer: patients, patents, and public trust.Journal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research · 2011Article
- The path from bench to bedside: considerations before starting the journey.Journal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research · 2011Article
- Enhancing ties between academia and industry to improve health.Nature medicine · 2011Article
- Ophthalmic research priorities and practices in Nigeria: an assessment of the views of nigerian ophthalmologists.Middle East African journal of ophthalmology · 2011Article
- Perceptions of Nigerian medical specialists on research.Journal of public health in Africa · 2011Review
- [From the design of use study to the assessment of the benefit: with or without pharmaceutical industry?].Medizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany : 1983) · 2010Article
- Translational research for cardiovascular diseases at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: moving from bench to bedside and from bedside to community.Circulation · 2010Review
- Survey of medical centers points to funding gaps.Nature medicine · 2009Article
- A Call to Action: A Specialty-Specific Course to Support the Next Generation of Clinician Scientists in Anesthesiology.The journal of education in perioperative medicine : JEPMArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextBesides the generic "basic" vs "applied" labels, little information is known about the types of life-science research conducted within academic medical centers (AMCs).
objectiveTo determine the relative proportion, characteristics, funding, and productivity of AMC faculty by the type of research they conduct.
designMailed survey conducted in 2007 of 3080 life-science faculty at the 50 universities with medical schools that received the most funding from the National Institutes of Health in 2004. Response rate was 74%. SETTING AND
participantsResearch faculty affiliated with a medical school or teaching hospital, representing 77% of respondents (n = 1663).
main outcome measuresType of research (basic, translational, clinical trials, health services research/clinical epidemiology, multimode, other), total funding, industry funding, publications, professional activities, patenting behavior, and industry relationships.
resultsAmong AMC research faculty, 33.6% exclusively conducted basic science research as principal investigators compared with translational researchers (9.1%), clinical trial investigators (7.1%), and health services researchers/clinical epidemiologists (9.0%). While principal investigators garnered a mean of $410,755 in total annual research funding, 22.1% of all AMC research faculty were unsponsored, a proportion that ranged from 11.5% for basic science researchers to 46.8% for health services researchers (P < .001). The average AMC faculty member received $33,417 in industry-sponsored funding, with most of this money concentrated among clinical trial ($110,869) and multimode ($59,916) principal investigators. Translational (61.3%), clinical trial (67.3%), and multimode (70.9%) researchers were significantly more likely than basic science researchers (41.9%) to report a relationship with industry and that these relationships contributed to their most important scientific work (P < .05 for all comparisons).
conclusionThe research function of AMCs is active and diverse, incorporating a substantial proportion of faculty who are conducting research and publishing without sponsorship.
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.