SynthesisHealth research policy and systems2019
The impact generated by publicly and charity-funded research in the United Kingdom: a systematic literature review.
Synthesis in Health research policy and systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cancer and Environmental Xenobiotics: Mechanisms, Controversies, and Innovations.Journal of xenobiotics · 2025Review
- Exploring the impact of physical exercise regimens on health-related quality of life following oesophageal or gastric cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Innovation Pathways in the NHS: An Introductory Review.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2021Review
- Repurposing NGO data for better research outcomes: a scoping review of the use and secondary analysis of NGO data in health policy and systems research.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify, synthesise and critically assess the empirical evidence of the impact generated by publicly and charity-funded health research in the United Kingdom.
methodsWe conducted a systematic literature review of the empirical evidence published in English in peer-reviewed journals between 2006 and 2017. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected and their findings were analysed using the Payback Framework and categorised into five main dimensions, namely knowledge, benefits to future research and research use, benefits from informing policy and product development, health and health sector benefits, and broader economic benefits. We assessed the studies for risk of selection, reporting and funding bias.
resultsThirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies (10 out of 13) assessed impact at multiple domains including the main five key themes of the Payback Framework. All of them showed a positive impact of funded research on outcomes. Of those studies, one (8%), six (46%) and six (46%) presented a low, moderate and high risk of bias, respectively.
conclusionsEmpirical evidence on the impact of publicly and charity-funded research is still limited and subject to funding and selection bias. More work is needed to establish the causal effects of funded research on academic outcomes, policy, practice and the broader economy.
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.