ReviewPloS one2017
An overview of financial sources being utilized to support Zika Virus published research.
Review in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince its initial detection in Brazil in 2015, Zika Virus (ZIKV) has spread rapidly throughout most of the Caribbean and South, Central and North America. An upsurge in congenital syndrome associated with ZIKV and Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) has been associated with the increase in ZIKV. This amplification in numbers led to the need for funded research initiatives focusing on various countries globally and on specific experimental types.
objectivesTo determine the financial institutions involved in the production of primary research into the ZIKV epidemic. This research also intends to draw attention to the investigative areas that are dominating, experimental types being conducted and the geographical areas that are producing the bulk of the research utilizing available funds.
methodsA cross sectional search of published primary research was conducted using Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) Zika platform and PubMed between January 2007 and October 2016. Titles, abstract and full articles were assed and one researcher extracted data. Information was crossed checked by a second researcher to ensure accuracy.
findings268 articles were included and investigations occurred across 48 countries with Brazil and USA dominating the research. Applied Research and Laboratory based studies were most frequently utilized. 38.1% of articles did not report financial sources. Public institutions were the major known contributors. Other financiers included private, non-profits and mixed funders exclusive of public sources. 156 individual financial bodies assisted with National Institute of Health being most frequently mentioned followed by The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and the Institut Pasteur. Virus, vectors and reservoirs was most frequently used (99/268, 36.9%) followed by clinical management (70/268, 26.1%) and epidemiology (46/268, 17.2%).
interpretationThe evidence suggests international efforts to fund ZIKV research and a need to foster collaborative and synchronized priority setting for resource allocation.
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.