ArticlePloS one2023
Industry involvement in evidence production for genomic medicine: A bibliometric and funding analysis of decision impact studies.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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.
- Abdominoplasty Through Six Decades: A Bibliometric Analysis.Indian journal of plastic surgery : official publication of the Association of Plastic Surgeons of India · 2026Review
- Prognosis, treatment decision-making and value: A qualitative exploration of the emerging role of breast cancer prognostic assays.PloS one · 2025Article
- Registered trials on novel therapies for myasthenia gravis: a cross-sectional study on ClinicalTrials.gov.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDecision impact studies have become increasingly prevalent in genomic medicine, particularly in cancer research. Such studies are designed to provide evidence of clinical utility for genomic tests by evaluating their impact on clinical decision-making. This paper offers insights into understanding of the origins and intentions of these studies through an analysis of the actors and institutions responsible for the production of this new type of evidence.
methodsWe conducted bibliometric and funding analyses of decision impact studies in genomic medicine research. We searched databases from inception to June 2022. The datasets used were primarily from Web of Science. Biblioshiny, additional R-based applications, and Microsoft Excel were used for publication, co-authorship and co-word analyses.
results163 publications were included for the bibliometric analysis; a subset of 125 studies were included for the funding analysis. Included publications started in 2010 and increased steadily over time. Decision impact studies were primarily produced for proprietary genomic assays for use in cancer care. The author and affiliate analyses reveal that these studies were produced by 'invisible colleges' of researchers and industry actors with collaborations focused on producing evidence for proprietary assays. Most authors had an industry affiliation, and the majority of studies were funded by industry. While studies were conducted in 22 countries, the majority had at least one author from the USA. DISCUSSION: This study is a critical step in understanding the role of industry in the production of new types of research. Based on the data collected, we conclude that decision impact studies are industry-conceived and -produced evidence. The findings of this study demonstrate the depth of industry involvement and highlight a need for further research into the use of these studies in decision-making for coverage and reimbursement.
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.