ArticleBMJ open2017
Investments in cancer research awarded to UK institutions and the global burden of cancer 2000-2013: a systematic analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- As bleak as it sounds? Analysing trends in oncology clinical trial initiation in the UK from 2010 to 2022.BMJ oncology · 2024Article
- A promising new cancer marker: Long noncoding RNA EGFR-AS1.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Article
- Improving the Early Diagnosis of Gastric Cancer.Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America · 2021Review
- Article
- Medical imaging and nuclear medicine: a Lancet Oncology Commission.The Lancet. Oncology · 2021Review
- Exploring gene knockout strategies to identify potential drug targets using genome-scale metabolic models.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Theranostic Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles Loaded With a Curcumin-Naphthoquinone Conjugate for Potential Cancer Intervention.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2021Article
- The relationship between government research funding and the cancer burden in South Korea: implications for prioritising health research.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- Databases for Research and Development.Emerging infectious diseases · 2019Article
- Discrepancies between Canadian cancer research funding and site-specific cancer burden: a spotlight on ten disease sites.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2018Article
- Past Questions and Current Understanding About Gastric Cancer.Gastroenterology · 2018Article
- A systematic analysis of UK cancer research funding by gender of primary investigator.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Research Priorities and Resource Allocation in the Investigation of New Drugs for Cancer in Least Developed Countries.Journal of oncology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo systematically categorise cancer research investment awarded to United Kingdom (UK) institutions in the period 2000-2013 and to estimate research investment relative to disease burden as measured by mortality, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and years lived with disability (YLDs).
designSystematic analysis of all open-access data. SETTING AND
participantsPublic and philanthropic funding to all UK cancer research institutions, 2000-2013.
main outcome measuresNumber and financial value of cancer research investments reported in 2013 UK pounds (UK£). Mortality, DALYs and YLDs data were acquired from the Global Burden of Disease Study. A compound metric was adapted to estimate research investment relative to disease burden as measured by mortality, DALYs and YLDs.
resultsWe identified 4299 funded studies with a total research investment of £2.4 billion. The highest fundings by anatomical sites were haematological, breast, prostate, colorectal and ovarian cancers. Relative to disease burden as determined by a compound metric combining mortality, DALYs and YLDs, gender-specific cancers were found to be highest funded-the five sites that received the most funding were prostate, ovarian, breast, mesothelioma and testicular cancer; the least well-funded sites were liver, thyroid, lung, upper gastrointestinal (GI) and bladder. Preclinical science accounted for 66.2% of award numbers and 62.2% of all funding. The top five areas of primary research focus by funding were pathogenesis, drug therapy, diagnostic, screening and monitoring, women's health and immunology. The largest individual funder was the Medical Research Council. In combination, the five lowest funded site-specific cancers relative to disease burden account for 47.9%, 44.3% and 20.4% of worldwide cancer mortality, DALYs and YLDs.
conclusionsResearch funding for cancer is not allocated according to relative disease burden. These findings are in line with earlier published studies. Funding agencies and industry should openly document their research investments to improve better targeting of research investment.
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.