Advertisement

Tracking publication outcomes of National Institutes of Health grants

      Abstract

      Purpose

      The peer-review literature is the primary medium through which the findings of funded research are evaluated by and disseminated to the broader scientific community. This study examines when and how grants funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) lead to publications.

      Methods

      Data on all investigator-initiated R01 grants funded during 1996 (n = 18 211) were extracted from the NIH’s Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects Web site. These data were linked with all MEDLINE articles published during and up through 4 years after completion of each grant using NIH grant numbers reported in the manuscript. Analyses examined the number, timing, and correlates of all linked publications and publications in core journals (179 journals, comprising the top 100 Institute for Scientific Information or 120 Abridged Index Medicus journals).

      Results

      On average, each grant produced 7.6 MEDLINE manuscripts (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.47 to 7.69) and 1.61 publications in a core journal (95% CI: 1.56 to 1.65). In multivariable analyses among universities, more manuscripts and publications in core journals were seen for competing renewals versus new grants, for projects reviewed by basic science study sections, for full professors, and for universities with graduate programs ranked in the top 10 by US News and World Report. However, all grant, investigator, and institutional strata produced substantial numbers of publications per grant.

      Conclusions

      The findings support the feasibility and potential utility of efforts to study the link between grant funding and research findings, an early step in the process by which funded science leads to improved clinical and public health.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      References

      1. What is the National Institutes of Health? Bethesda, Maryland; National Institutes of Health. Available at: http://www.nih.gov/about/Faqs.htm#NIH. Accessed November 4, 2004.

        • Comroe J.H.
        • Dripps R.D.
        Scientific basis for the support of biomedical science.
        Science. 1976; 192: 105-111
        • Smit Rh.
        Comroe and Dripps revisited.
        Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1987; 295: 1404-1407
        • Grant J.
        • Hanney S.
        • Buxton M.
        Academic medicine: time for reinvention: research needs researching.
        BMJ. 2004; 328: 48
        • Contopoulos-Ioannidis D.G.
        • Ntzani E.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Translation of highly promising basic science research into clinical applications.
        Am J Med. 2003; 114: 477-484
        • Crist T.B.
        • Schafer A.I.
        • Walsh R.A.
        Translating basic discoveries into better health care.
        Am J Med. 2004; 116: 431-434
        • Lamas G.A.
        • Pfeffer M.A.
        • Hamm P.
        • et al.
        • The SAVE Investigators
        Do the results of randomized clinical trials of cardiovascular drugs influence medical practice?.
        N Engl J Med. 1992; 327: 241-247
        • Ketley D.
        • Woods K.L.
        Impact of clinical trials on clinical practice.
        Lancet. 1993; 342: 891-894
        • Gross C.P.
        • Steiner C.A.
        • Bass E.B.
        • Powe N.R.
        Relation between prepublication release of clinical trial results and the practice of carotid endarterectomy.
        JAMA. 2000; 284: 2886-2893
        • Stafford R.S.
        • Furgerg C.D.
        • Finkelstein S.N.
        • et al.
        Impact of clinical trial results on national trends in alpha-blocker prescribing, 1996–2002.
        JAMA. 2004; 291: 54-62
        • Buxton M.
        • Hanney S.
        How can payback from health services research be assessed.?.
        J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996; 1: 35-43
        • Grant J.
        • Cottrell R.
        • Cluzeau F.
        • Fawcett G.
        Evaluating ‘payback’ on biomedical research from papers cited in clinical guidelines.
        BMJ. 2000; 320: 1107-1111
        • Global Forum for Health Research
        The 10/90 Report on Health Research 2003–2004. Global Forum for Health Research, Geneva, Switzerland2004
      2. NIH Office of Extramural Research. NIH Research Project Grant Program (R01). Available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/r01.htm.

      3. National Institutes of Health. Summary of the FY 2004 President’s budget, February 3rd, 2003. Available at: www.nih.gov. Accessed November 4, 2004.

      4. NIH Office of Extramural Research. NIH extramural awards by state and foreign site. Available at: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/award/state/state.htm. Accessed November 4, 2004.

      5. Morse RJ, Flanigan S. How we rank schools. US News and World Report. Available at: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/03rank.htm. Accessed November 4, 2004.

        • Thompson I.S.I.
        ISI Journal Citation Reports. Science Edition. 2002 (Available at: http://isi5.isiknowledge.com. Accessed November 4, 2004.)
        • Garfield E.
        How can impact factors be improved?.
        BMJ. 1996; 313: 411-413
        • Nathan D.G.
        • Wilson J.
        Clinical research and the NIH—a report card.
        N Engl J Med. 2003; 349: 1860-1865
        • Moy E.
        • Griner P.F.
        • Challoner D.R.
        • Perry D.R.
        Distribution of research awards from the National Institutes of Health among medical schools.
        N Engl J Med. 2000; 342: 250-255
        • Perry D.R.
        • Challoner D.R.
        • Oberst R.V.
        Research advances and resource constraints.
        N Engl J Med. 1981; 305: 320-324
        • Grant J.
        • Lewison G.
        Government funding of research and development.
        Science. 1997; 278: 878-879
        • Jaffee A.B.
        • Trajtenberg M.
        Flows of knowledge from universities and federal laboratories.
        Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1996; 93: 12671-12677
        • Institute of Medicine
        Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC1998