ArticleCureus2025
Research Project Grants in Gynecology and Their Influence on Practice Guidelines.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Breaking barriers in gynecologic malignancies with adoptive cell transfers and nanomedicine.Cell biomaterials · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives The aim of this study was to report on Research Project Grants (R01) funding in gynecology and to assess its impact on peer-reviewed publications and their incorporation into the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) practice guidelines. Methods This cross-sectional study was performed using data obtained from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Report and Tools Expenditure and Results (RePORTER). Publications stemming from R01 grants were determined by extracting the publication list from the individual project data pages. ACOG Practice Bulletins and Committee Opinions related to gynecology were screened. If the principal investigator associated with the R01 grant was referenced in the guidelines, the citation was cross-referenced with the NIH RePORTER website to confirm its origin and incorporation into practice guidelines. Results Gynecology received 0.1-0.2% of the over $40 billion total NIH funding. Gynecologic R01 funding increased by 57.7% between 2000 and 2005 and by 55.5% between 2005 and 2010, but it increased minimally between 2010 and 2015 (2.5%). The number of grants followed a similar trend, with a decrease of -36.8% by 2015. Between 2000 and 2010, gynecology had 50% to 70% less funding when compared with obstetrics and urology. During these years, 40% of states did not get a single R01 grant. Since 2005, less than 1% of publications have been referenced in ACOG guidelines and 0.3% or less have been linked to practice recommendations. Out of 5,663 publications, only 11 have been linked with recommendations since the year 2000. Conclusion Fewer than 0.3% of R01 grants focused on gynecologic topics, and there was a relative decline in the number of grants and NIH funding allocated to gynecology. The number of publications referenced in ACOG guidelines and linked to recommendations remains minimal, emphasizing a need to fund topics that influence national guidelines.
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.