ArticleOphthalmology science
Trends in Research Payments for Diabetic Macular Edema from 2015 to 2021.
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing geographic and institutional disparities in United States diabetic eye disease clinical trials (2000-2023).Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- Racial and Ethnic Disparities at Enrollment in DRCRnet Clinical Trials for Diabetic Macular Edema.American journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate characteristics of research payments for diabetic macular edema (DME) studies and correlations to current management trends. Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study. Subjects: Research payments for DME. Methods: Studies with keywords of "diabetic macular edema" or "DME" in the title were extracted from the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database from 2015 to 2021. Recipients, payors, and payment amounts were identified. Industry funding was compared with public research funding by the National Eye Institute (NEI). Main Outcome Measures: Trends and total value of industry and public fundings for DME from 2015 to 2021. Results: From 2015 to 2021, 451 beneficiaries received 6062 industry payments for a total of $120 148 997.41 for DME-related research. The total value of industry funding increased from $8 225 859.08 in 2015 to $50 092 778.45 in 2021. Of the 6062 industry payments, 5367 (88.5%) were reported by male recipients compared with 695 (11.5%) female beneficiaries. Payments to female recipients increased from 60 (7.1%) in 2015 to 335 (13.7%) in 2021. In comparison, public funding for DME-related research from the NEI was comprised of $18 863 266.00 to 17 principal investigators from 2015 to 2021. The total value of public funding increased from $973 590.00 in 2015 to $3 354 376.00 in 2021. Of 59 public research payments, 46 (78.0%) were reported by male recipients and 13 (22.0%) by female recipients. Payments to female recipients increased from 1 (25.0%) in 2015 to 3 (30.0%) in 2021. The most highly invested product by industry were anti-VEGF agents, accounting for $89 955 595.20 (74.9%) of total payment value. Conclusions: There was an increase in both industry and public-sponsored funding for DME-related research from 2015 to 2021. There seemed to be a possible discrepancy in both industry and public funding based on sex for DME studies during the study period. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.