ArticleRoyal Society open science2021
The hidden influence of communities in collaborative funding of clinical science.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bibliometric analysis of congenital diaphragmatic hernia research models: evolution and insights from the past three decades.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Review
- A peer-review decision support tool for research funding decision-making using the analytic hierarchy process.PloS one · 2026Article
- Development and implementation of digital solutions in healthcare: insights from the Australian tertiary hospital landscape.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Barriers and Constraints in Scientific Manuscript Preparation Among Nephrologists: Insights From India.International journal of nephrology · 2025Article
- Worldwide research tendency and collaborations on models of necrotizing enterocolitis: bibliometric exploration over the past three decades.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Deciphering the past status and future tendency: a comprehensive scientometric study on developmental dysplasia of the hip.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Article
- The hidden influence of communities in collaborative funding of clinical science.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Every year the National Institutes of Health allocates $10.7 billion (one-third of its funds) for clinical science research while the pharmaceutical companies spend $52.9 billion (90% of its annual budget). However, we know little about funder collaborations and the impact of collaboratively funded projects. As an initial effort towards this, we examine the co-funding network, where a funder represents a node and an edge signifies collaboration. Our core data include all papers that cite and receive citations by the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, a prominent clinical review journal. We find that 65% of clinical papers have multiple funders and discover communities of funders that are formed by national boundaries and funding objectives. To quantify success in funding, we use a
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.