ArticlePloS one2025
Quality and costs of commissioned vs. researcher-led NIHR research: retrospective cohort study of randomised controlled trials.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The NIHR provides two main funding pathways: 'commissioned' (CP) and 'researcher-led' (RLP) projects. CPs are used to ensure NHS priorities are addressed. However, there is uncertainty regarding which provides the highest quality, best value for money, research. We compared the quality and cost of commissioned and research-led projects. We searched the NIHR Funded Portfolio database for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) funded by programmes offering both CP and RLP funding. The main outcome was journal impact factor for the main results paper. Other outcomes included: Altmetric score, relative citation ratio, total and per participant funding. T-tests were used to compare mean values. 82 eligible RCTs were identified, 30 commissioned and 52 researcher-led. One RLP did not progress beyond pilot; two (one CP and one RLP) did not publish a monograph; and 78 published main study results in a peer-reviewed journal. Among these, RLP projects had higher means scores than CP projects for: journal impact factor (111.2 and 40.8, respectively, p < 0.001); Altmetric score (223.8 and 116.8, p = 0.05); and relative citation ratio (8.0 and 4.4, p = 0.06). Among the full 82 RCTs, RLP mean total study and per participant funding were lower than CP: £1,429,913 vs. £1,353,034, p = 0.59; and £11,271 vs. £4425, p = 0.08. Researcher-led projects are more likely to result in higher impact research compared with commissioned studies. Further research is needed to understand the reasons, which could include: commissioned research addressing harder-to-do questions; commissioning brief quality; and/or research team motivation.
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.