ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Funding distributions, trends, gaps, and policy implications for spinal cord injury research: A systematic analysis of US federal funds.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
35 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Federal agencies including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Defense (DoD) Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP) Spinal Cord Injury Research Program (SCIRP), and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provide the majority of funding for spinal cord injury (SCI) research in the United States. However, systematic evaluation of how funding is distributed across research areas, therapeutic approaches, and translational stages has been limited. To understand the distribution of funds, we curated and classified 1,589 federally funded SCI research awards from the NIH (2008-2023), the CDMRP SCIRP (2009-2023), and the VA (2017-2025). Each award was annotated based on the biological system or problem studied, the therapeutic intervention or approach utilized, and its placement along the translational continuum. Our analysis revealed that the NIH predominantly supports basic and early stage translational research, especially in areas of SCI pathology, regeneration, and motor functional recovery. In contrast, the CDMRP funding is more concentrated on applied and clinical research, particularly in the areas of pain, bladder function, and neuromodulatory device development. The VA predominantly invests in rehabilitation-focused studies and interventions aimed at improving musculoskeletal and functional health outcomes. While the complementary missions of these agencies collectively support a diverse SCI research ecosystem, we identified critical gaps in funding for high-priority areas such as bowel/gastrointestinal health, cardiovascular function, and mental health. Furthermore, the recent discontinuation of the CDMRP SCIRP and proposed NIH budget reductions are projected to lead to an approximate 50% decline in federal SCI research funding by 2026-posing a substantial risk to the field's progress and threatening the stability of this ecosystem. These findings underscore the urgent need for coordinated, data-driven funding strategies that align more closely with the needs and priorities of the SCI community. To that end, we propose the development of a publicly accessible "living dashboard" to enhance transparency, foster interdisciplinary collaboration, and guide strategic investment in SCI research moving forward.
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.