ArticleCureus2020
National Institutes of Health Funding in Obstetrics and Gynecology: Analysis of R01 Grants by Degree and Gender.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Gender differences and cooperation in medical authorships - an analysis of the recent ten years in five key medical disciplines.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Article
- Perinatal Research Society's Young Investigator Workshop Prepares the Next Generation of Investigators.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2022Article
- Gender Differences in Research Project Grants and R01 Grants at the National Institutes of Health.Cureus · 2021Article
- 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
introductionLimited data currently exist regarding the demographics of principal investigators (PIs) in obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN), who have received an R01 grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
objectiveThis study investigated funding differences among gender and advanced degree for PIs in the disciplines of OBGYN.
methodsRetrospective data were collected from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) tool to identify OBGYN PIs who received an R01 grant between 2008 and 2017. Results: Between 2008 and 2017, the NIH awarded 263 R01 grants totaling $113,326,883 in funding to investigators in OBGYN. Male PIs and PIs holding a non-medical degree were awarded the majority of R01 grants (52.47% and 55.51%, respectively). Zero osteopathic (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine [DO]) physicians were awarded an R01 grant in OBGYN during this time period. Females were awarded larger dollar amounts than males ($449,556 vs $414,003, p=0.04). Allopathic (Doctor of Medicine [MD]) physicians were awarded larger grants than scientists holding a non-medical degree ($467,849 vs $401,291, p<0.01). Both male and female MD physicians were awarded more dollars per grant as compared with PIs holding a non-medical degree (p=0.01 and p<0.01, respectively).
conclusionsBetween 2008 and 2017, a degree disparity was found to exist for investigators who received an NIH R01 grant in OBGYN. Females and investigators holding an MD degree were awarded larger total grants than their male and non-physician counterparts. Further research needs to be undertaken to understand the degree disparity and recent funding trends by the NIH.
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.