ReviewCureus2025
Global Disparities in Vascular Research: A Cross-National Analysis of Varicose Vein Trials.
Review in Cureus, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Developing countries bear a disproportionate burden of global cardiovascular mortality, yet contribute minimally to vascular research output. This study quantifies these disparities through a focused analysis of varicose vein clinical trials, a condition selected for its global prevalence and accessibility to basic surgical care. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library identified clinical trials on varicose veins published over a five-year period. Studies were classified by country using the UN Human Development Index (HDI), and output was analyzed in relation to national gross domestic product (GDP) and population size. Statistical comparisons between developed and developing countries were performed using independent samples t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Spearman correlation coefficients. A total of 252 eligible studies from 35 countries were analyzed. Developed nations contributed 73% of the trials, producing one study per 7.5 million people compared to one per 52 million in developing countries (p<0.0001). GDP-normalized output revealed no significant difference between groups, suggesting comparable proportional economic investment. Strong correlations were found between research output and GDP, particularly in developing countries (ρ=0.93, p=0.003), whereas population size showed weaker associations. The findings reveal that while economic scale predicts research output, population-adjusted analysis uncovers deeper systemic barriers in developing countries. Addressing these disparities requires targeted investment in research infrastructure, capacity building, and international collaboration to foster equitable knowledge production in global vascular health.
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.