ArticleCureus2019
Patterns of Recent National Institutes of Health Funding in Family Medicine: Analysis Using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gender Differences in National Institutes of Health Funding for Family Medicine Faculty.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2026Article
- Underfunding for Research Training and Career Development: The Impact on Family Medicine Research.Family medicine · 2024Article
- Are females in classical hematology getting a fair share? Uncovering gender disparities in NIH R01 grants.Frontiers in sociology · 2024Article
- Common Paths in Medical Education: An Updated Look at the Training of Allopathic, Osteopathic, and Naturopathic Physicians.Integrative medicine (Encinitas, Calif.) · 2022Review
- Article
- Medical Degree Disparity Among Authors of Original Research in Pediatric Journals: A Four-Year Follow-Up.Cureus · 2020Article
- National Institutes of Health Funding in Obstetrics and Gynecology: Analysis of R01 Grants by Degree and Gender.Cureus · 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
Introduction Despite a call for increased research by family-medicine physicians, there is no data on the demographics of those awarded a National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 grant. Objective The purpose of the study was to assess recent NIH R01 funding trends over the last decade in family medicine. Methods A retrospective analysis of NIH R01 grant funding in family medicine was conducted by extracting demographic data from the NIH's Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database from 2008 through 2017. Demographics were reported as percentages, and comparisons of the groups were performed by the t-test. Results From 2008 to 2017, the NIH awarded 139 R01 grants to principal investigators (PI) in family medicine. Males comprised 51.80% of all awardees, and those holding a doctorate of medicine (MD) made up 43.88% of the awardees. No one holding a Doctorate of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) degree received an NIH R01 grant during the timeframe studied. A total of 81.97% of all MDs held a dual degree. When gender and degree were considered, no statistical difference was observed for the total amount of dollars awarded. Conclusion For the years studied, a disparity related to medical degrees was noted for those family-medicine physicians who received an NIH R01 grant. However, no gender disparity was observed.
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.