Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38880873›Full record

ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2024

Return on investment in science: twenty years of European Commission funded research in Alzheimer's dementia, breast cancer and prostate cancer.

Mihajlo Jakovljevic, Pierre Deceuninck, Francesca Pistollato, Evangelos Daskalopoulos, Camilla Bernasconi, Florabela Carausu, Matilde Rosa, Artemis Progri, Martina Makarieva, Kristijan Krstic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Mihajlo JakovljevicUNESCO - The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS), Trieste, Italy. sidartagothama@gmail.com.
Pierre DeceuninckEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
Francesca PistollatoEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
Evangelos DaskalopoulosEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
Camilla BernasconiEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
Florabela CarausuGOPA Worldwide Consultants GmbH, Hindenburgring 18, 61348, Bad Homburg Vor Der Höhe, Germany.
Matilde RosaSocial Data Lab, Lisbon, Portugal.
Artemis ProgriGOPA Luxembourg, Bereldange, Luxembourg.
Martina MakarievaGOPA Luxembourg, Bereldange, Luxembourg.
Kristijan KrsticDepartment of Global Health Economics and Policy, University of Kragujevac, Kragujevac, Serbia.

Funding

European Commission Specific Contract 000064 (JRC Ref CCR.F.C939388.X1) under the Framework Contract 2018.0086
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Alzheimer's disease (AD), breast cancer (BC) and prostate cancer (PC) continue to be high in the research and innovation agenda of the European Commission (EC). This is due to their exceptionally large burden to the national health systems, the profound economic effects of opportunity costs attributable to decreased working ability, premature mortality and the ever-increasing demand for both hospital and home-based medical care. Over the last two decades, the EC has been steadily increasing both the number of proposals being funded and the amounts of financial resources being allocated to these fields of research. This trend has continued throughout four consecutive science funding cycles, namely framework programme (FP)5, FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020 (H2020). We performed a retrospective assessment of the outputs and outcomes of EC funding in AD, BC and PC research over the 1999-2019 period by means of selected indicators. These indicators were assessed for their ability to screen the past, present and future for an array of causal relationships and long-term trends in clinical, epidemiological and public health sphere, while considering also the broader socioeconomic impact of funded research on the society at large. This analysis shows that public-private partnerships with large industry and university-based consortia have led to some of the most impactful proposals being funded over the analysed time period. New pharmaceuticals, small molecules and monoclonal antibodies alike, along with screening and prevention, have been the most prominent sources of innovation in BC and PC, extending patients' survival and enhancing their quality of life. Unlike oncology, dementia drug development has been way less successful, with only minor improvements related to the quality of supportive medical care for symptoms and more sensitive diagnostics, without any ground-breaking disease-modifying treatment(s). Significant progresses in imaging diagnostics and nanotechnology have been largely driven by the participation of medical device industry multinational companies. Clinical trials funded by the EC were conducted, leading to the development of brand-new drug molecules featuring novel mechanisms of action. Some prominent cases of breakthrough discoveries serve as evidence for the European capability to generate cutting-edge technological innovation in biomedicine. Less productive areas of research may be reconsidered as priorities when shaping the new agenda for forthcoming science funding programmes.

Indexed as

Alzheimer’s diseaseBreast cancerEuropean CommissionFP5FP6FP7FundingHorizon 2020IndicatorsInnovationInvestmentMedical careOutcomesPharmaceuticalsPolicyProstate cancerPublic investmentPublic P&R fundingResearch policyReturn on investment (RoI)

Identifiers

PMID38880873
PMCPMC11181594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.