Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25623607›Full record

ArticleGlobal health action2015

Poverty-related and neglected diseases - an economic and epidemiological analysis of poverty relatedness and neglect in research and development.

Peter von Philipsborn, Fridolin Steinbeis, Max E Bender, Sadie Regmi, Peter Tinnemann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health action, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Socially responsible science: Exploring the complexities.European journal for philosophy of science · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Ethical Machine Learning in Healthcare.Annual review of biomedical data science · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Peter von PhilipsbornFaculty of Medicine, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany; Universities Allied for Essential Medicines Europe e.V. (UAEM), Berlin, Germany; peter.philipsborn@alumni.lse.ac.uk.
Fridolin SteinbeisUniversities Allied for Essential Medicines Europe e.V. (UAEM), Berlin, Germany; Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Max E BenderUniversities Allied for Essential Medicines Europe e.V. (UAEM), Berlin, Germany; Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Sadie RegmiUniversities Allied for Essential Medicines Europe e.V. (UAEM), Berlin, Germany; Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Peter TinnemannInstitute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEconomic growth in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) has raised interest in how disease burden patterns are related to economic development. Meanwhile, poverty-related diseases are considered to be neglected in terms of research and development (R&D).

objectivesDeveloping intuitive and meaningful metrics to measure how different diseases are related to poverty and neglected in the current R&D system.

designWe measured how diseases are related to economic development with the income relation factor (IRF), defined by the ratio of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) per 100,000 inhabitants in LMIC versus that in high-income countries. We calculated the IRF for 291 diseases and injuries and 67 risk factors included in the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. We measured neglect in R&D with the neglect factor (NF), defined by the ratio of disease burden in DALYs (as percentage of the total global disease burden) and R&D expenditure (as percentage of total global health-related R&D expenditure) for 26 diseases.

resultsThe disease burden varies considerably with the level of economic development, shown by the IRF (median: 1.38; interquartile range (IQR): 0.79-6.3). Comparison of IRFs from 1990 to 2010 highlights general patterns of the global epidemiological transition. The 26 poverty-related diseases included in our analysis of neglect in R&D are responsible for 13.8% of the global disease burden, but receive only 1.34% of global health-related R&D expenditure. Within this group, the NF varies considerably (median: 19; IQR: 6-52).

conclusionsThe IRF is an intuitive and meaningful metric to highlight shifts in global disease burden patterns. A large shortfall exists in global R&D spending for poverty-related and neglected diseases, with strong variations between diseases.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDeveloping CountriesEconomic DevelopmentGlobal HealthHumansNeglected DiseasesPovertyRisk FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsWorld Health OrganizationWounds and Injuriesdisease burdendouble burdenglobal burden of diseaseneglected tropical diseasespoverty-related and neglected diseasesresearch and developmentresearch and development expenditure

Identifiers

PMID25623607
PMCPMC4306754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.