ArticleCureus2019
Patterns of Recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) Funding in General Surgery: Analysis Using the NIH RePORTER System.
Article in Cureus, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Osteopathic Acceptance in General Surgery Residency: A Five-Year Review of Resident Outcomes.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- R01 Funding for Surgeons; What Are the Key Factors for Success?The Journal of surgical research · 2025Article
- NIH funding for the pediatric surgeon-scientist: A stable entity, but for how long?Surgery open science · 2025Article
- Are females in classical hematology getting a fair share? Uncovering gender disparities in NIH R01 grants.Frontiers in sociology · 2024Article
- Gender differences and cooperation in medical authorships - an analysis of the recent ten years in five key medical disciplines.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Current Status of National Institutes of Health Research Funding for Women Surgeon-Scientists.JAMA surgery · 2022Article
- Common Paths in Medical Education: An Updated Look at the Training of Allopathic, Osteopathic, and Naturopathic Physicians.Integrative medicine (Encinitas, Calif.) · 2022Review
- Examination of Potential Industry Conflicts of Interest and Disclosures by Contributors to Online Medical Resource Databases.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Gender Differences in Research Project Grants and R01 Grants at the National Institutes of Health.Cureus · 2021Article
- Article
- Medical Degree Disparity Among Authors of Original Research in Pediatric Journals: A Four-Year Follow-Up.Cureus · 2020Article
- Factors affecting R01 grant funding among academic neurosurgeons over the last decade.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2020Article
- National Institutes of Health Funding in Obstetrics and Gynecology: Analysis of R01 Grants by Degree and Gender.Cureus · 2020Article
- Article
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
introductionThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the world's largest funding source for research, and the R01 grant is seen as a stepping stone to future granting opportunities for the physician-scientist. Recently, both a gender and degree disparity in scholarly activity has been highlighted in the medical literature. Objective: To assess NIH R01 funding trends in general surgery over the last decade.
methodsA retrospective review of general surgery funding was extracted from the NIH's Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results database from 2008 through 2017. All principal investigators (PIs) were categorized by gender and academic degree(s). Linear regression analysis assessed NIH grant funding trends over time and comparisons of groups were completed with the t-test.
resultsFrom 2008 to 2017, the NIH awarded 600 R01 grants and $272,669,397 to PIs in general surgery. The majority of R01 grants were awarded to males (76.33%; p < 0.01) and those holding a Doctorate of Medicine (MD) degree (58.33%; p < 0.01). No Doctorate of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) had received an NIH R01 grant during the time studied. No statistically significant trend could be established for the number of R01 grants awarded over time (p = 0.33), grants awarded to males or females over time (p = 0.73 and p = 0.18), or for those holding an MD or other type of degree over time (p = 0.30 and p = 0.39). Also, no statistically significant trend was established for increased grant funding over time (P = 0.88) but females and those holding an other type of degree (Doctorate in Philosophy (PhD), Doctorate in Science (DSc), Master of Public Health (MPH), etc.) experienced an increase in the total dollar amount of funding over the time studied (p < 0.01 and p < 0.01). Conclusion: For the years studied, a gender and degree disparity exists for those receiving an NIH R01 grant in general surgery. However, an increase in total grant funding has been seen for both females and non-physician scientists over from 2008 through 2017.
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.