Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27191545›Full record

ArticleJAMA dermatology2016

Trends in National Institutes of Health Funding of Principal Investigators in Dermatology Research by Academic Degree and Sex.

Michelle Y Cheng, Andrea Sukhov, Hawa Sultani, Kyoungmi Kim, Emanual Maverakis

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA dermatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Gender gaps in National Institutes of Health dermatology grant recipients.International journal of women's dermatology · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Disparities in Academic Dermatology.JAMA dermatology · 2016
    Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Michelle Y ChengDepartment of Dermatology, University of California-Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento.
Andrea Sukhovmedical student at University of California-Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento.
Hawa SultaniDepartment of Dermatology, University of California-Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento.
Kyoungmi KimDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California-Davis, Davis.
Emanual MaverakisDepartment of Dermatology, University of California-Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento.

Funding

Investigation and Development of New Therapeutic Avenues for SclerodermaDP2OD008752 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI MAVERAKIS, EMANUAL M. · 2011 to 2016
$2.8M
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNIH HHS DP2 OD008752
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceNational Institutes of Health (NIH) grants are becoming increasingly competitive in the academic research arena. Identifying NIH funding disparities is an important step in improving academic diversity.

objectiveTo examine recent NIH funding trends in dermatology. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsRetrospective study with linear regression analysis and repeated-measures analysis of variance of all NIH grants awarded to departments of dermatology from fiscal year 2009 to 2014. Funding data were exported from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results. Publication data were drawn from Scopus. All NIH-funded principal investigators in dermatology were categorized by their academic degree and sex. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The NIH funding trends were compared by investigator degree (MD, PhD, or MD/PhD) and sex.

resultsA total of 1292 NIH-funded grants were awarded to dermatology research from fiscal year 2009 through 2014. Adjusted NIH funding for dermatologic research diminished by 4.6% from $67.3 million in 2009 to $64.2 million in 2014, with a nadir of $58.6 million in 2013. Funding for the NIH's Research Project Grant Program (R01) decreased by 21.0% from $43.9 million to $34.7 million during this period. The dollar amount of NIH funding significantly trended down for investigators with an MD degree by $1.35 million per year from $23.6 million in 2009 to $18.4 million in 2014 (P = .02) while there was no significant change in NIH funding for MD/PhD (from $17.6 million in 2009 to $19.8 million in 2014; P = .44) and PhD investigators (from $26.1 million in 2009 to $25.9 million in 2014; P = .74). Similarly, the total dollar amount of R01 grants awarded to principal investigators with only an MD degree trended down by $1.4 million per year from $13.2 million in 2009 to $6.0 million in 2014 (P < .001). The number of female investigators with NIH grants in dermatology trended down significantly compared with the trend of their male counterparts (from 49 women in 2009 to 43 women in 2014 vs from 84 men in 2009 to 97 men in 2014; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There is a downward trend in NIH funding for female and MD-only dermatology investigators. Departmental support and junior faculty mentorship for women and MD investigators is crucial for maintaining their presence in NIH-funded dermatology research.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDermatologyEducational StatusFemaleFinancing, GovernmentHumansMaleNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)Research PersonnelRetrospective StudiesSex FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.