ReviewBMJ global health2025
Low-research settings: is there a need for specific attention from funders?
Review in BMJ global health, 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.
- From Clinical Technique to Interprofessional Implementation and Intelligent Integration: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Interdisciplinary Expansion of Robot-Assisted Spine Surgery.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In order to achieve global equity in healthcare research it is important to identify countries that are less visible in this regard, to inform interventions. We performed a bibliometric analysis of the Web of Science Core Collection to identify countries with less visible medical research output, particularly in the English language. This highlighted that an important distinction needs to be made between low-resource and low-research countries, as countries of diverse World Bank income classifications and population size appeared as low-research countries in our search. We discuss potential contributors to these inequalities and implications for potential funders and collaborators. Owing to the English language bias of the database used for our search, this piece is aimed, in particular, at Anglophone institutions. It highlights potential issues of coloniality in the healthcare research landscape and provides suggestions to address research equity through more active engagement with countries.
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.