ArticleBMJ open2018
A systematic analysis of UK cancer research funding by gender of primary investigator.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global funding for surgical research between 2016 and 2020: content analysis of public and philanthropic investments.The British journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Research integrity and peer review · 2023Review
- Article
- Tracing ovarian cancer research in Morocco: A bibliometric analysis.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2021Article
- The leaky pipeline in research grant peer review and funding decisions: challenges and future directions.Higher education · 2021Review
- Gender Disparities in Authorships and Citations in Transplantation Research.Transplantation direct · 2020Review
- Gender Differences in Grant Submissions across Science and Engineering Fields at the NSF.Bioscience · 2020Article
- Handing the Microphone to Women: Changes in Gender Representation in Editorial Contributions Across Medical and Health Journals 2008-2018.International journal of health policy and management · 2020Article
- Women in cancer research.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2019Article
- Trial management: we need a cadre of high-class triallists to deliver the answers that patients need.Trials · 2019Article
- Assessment of Gender-Based Linguistic Differences in Physician Trainee Evaluations of Medical Faculty Using Automated Text Mining.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- Actionable equality.Nature medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo categorically describe cancer research funding in the UK by gender of primary investigator (PIs).
designSystematic analysis of all open-access data.
methodsData about public and philanthropic cancer research funding awarded to UK institutions between 2000 and 2013 were obtained from several sources. Fold differences were used to compare total investment, award number, mean and median award value between male and female PIs. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to determine statistically significant associations between PI gender and median grant value.
resultsOf the studies included in our analysis, 2890 (69%) grants with a total value of £1.82 billion (78%) were awarded to male PIs compared with 1296 (31%) grants with a total value of £512 million (22%) awarded to female PIs. Male PIs received 1.3 times the median award value of their female counterparts (P<0.001). These apparent absolute and relative differences largely persisted regardless of subanalyses.
conclusionsWe demonstrate substantial differences in cancer research investment awarded by gender. Female PIs clearly and consistently receive less funding than their male counterparts in terms of total investment, the number of funded awards, mean funding awarded and median funding awarded.
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.