传染病临床试验的经费和地理分布。

IF 8.5 1区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Hadrien Moffroid, Esmita Charani, Christina Blagojevic, Aliya Bryce, Aaron Ovadia, Matthew Slater, Daire Pryal, Rodrigo Escobar Careaga, Arvind Yerramilli, Nick Daneman, Steven Y C Tong, Sean W X Ong
{"title":"传染病临床试验的经费和地理分布。","authors":"Hadrien Moffroid, Esmita Charani, Christina Blagojevic, Aliya Bryce, Aaron Ovadia, Matthew Slater, Daire Pryal, Rodrigo Escobar Careaga, Arvind Yerramilli, Nick Daneman, Steven Y C Tong, Sean W X Ong","doi":"10.1016/j.cmi.2025.09.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To map funding flows in infectious disease randomized clinical trials (RCTs) by examining relationships between funding sources and trial locations in high impact journals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a secondary analysis of a previously published systematic review of 1,343 infectious disease RCTs published (2014-2023) in ten selected high-impact English language general medicine and infectious disease journals. Funding source, study site, and disease focus were extracted using a standardized data extraction form, and analysed by country income level using World Bank classifications Geographical distributions of funding and study sites were visualized using global heat maps. Funding flows between country income groups were visualized using a Sankey plot.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1343 trials, 1326 disclosed funding source (98.7%). Most trials identified in this review were investigator-initiated (772/1326, 58.2%), with the U.S. government as the largest contributing funder (366/1326, 27.6%), with the National Institutes of Health specifically involved in funding 258/1326 (19.5%) of trials. When disaggregated, there was a total of 1808 unique funders. These overwhelmingly originated from high-income countries (1496/1808, 82.7%) compared to upper-middle income (130/1808, 7.2%), low-middle income (35/1808, 1.9%), and low-income (8/1808, 0.4%) countries. In contrast, the 4606 disaggregated locations of study by country, were more distributed across income levels: high-income (2521/4606 61.9%), upper-middle income (918/4606, 22.5%), lower-middle income (360/4606, 8,8%), low-income (253/4606, 6.2%). Disease focus varied geographically; trials focusing on critical care, bacterial infections, sexually transmitted infections, hepatitis, influenza, and COVID-19 were underrepresented in low-income settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study reveals skewed geographical and funding distributions in the global landscape of infectious disease RCTs published in these 10 selected English language high-impact journals. As key funders reduce funding internationally, the impact on the research landscape may disproportionately affect lower-middle income countries. Further efforts should be made to build sustainable funding models and research capacity in lower-middle income countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":10444,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Microbiology and Infection","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Funding and geographical distribution of clinical trials in infectious diseases.\",\"authors\":\"Hadrien Moffroid, Esmita Charani, Christina Blagojevic, Aliya Bryce, Aaron Ovadia, Matthew Slater, Daire Pryal, Rodrigo Escobar Careaga, Arvind Yerramilli, Nick Daneman, Steven Y C Tong, Sean W X Ong\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cmi.2025.09.019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To map funding flows in infectious disease randomized clinical trials (RCTs) by examining relationships between funding sources and trial locations in high impact journals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a secondary analysis of a previously published systematic review of 1,343 infectious disease RCTs published (2014-2023) in ten selected high-impact English language general medicine and infectious disease journals. Funding source, study site, and disease focus were extracted using a standardized data extraction form, and analysed by country income level using World Bank classifications Geographical distributions of funding and study sites were visualized using global heat maps. Funding flows between country income groups were visualized using a Sankey plot.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1343 trials, 1326 disclosed funding source (98.7%). Most trials identified in this review were investigator-initiated (772/1326, 58.2%), with the U.S. government as the largest contributing funder (366/1326, 27.6%), with the National Institutes of Health specifically involved in funding 258/1326 (19.5%) of trials. When disaggregated, there was a total of 1808 unique funders. These overwhelmingly originated from high-income countries (1496/1808, 82.7%) compared to upper-middle income (130/1808, 7.2%), low-middle income (35/1808, 1.9%), and low-income (8/1808, 0.4%) countries. In contrast, the 4606 disaggregated locations of study by country, were more distributed across income levels: high-income (2521/4606 61.9%), upper-middle income (918/4606, 22.5%), lower-middle income (360/4606, 8,8%), low-income (253/4606, 6.2%). Disease focus varied geographically; trials focusing on critical care, bacterial infections, sexually transmitted infections, hepatitis, influenza, and COVID-19 were underrepresented in low-income settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study reveals skewed geographical and funding distributions in the global landscape of infectious disease RCTs published in these 10 selected English language high-impact journals. As key funders reduce funding internationally, the impact on the research landscape may disproportionately affect lower-middle income countries. Further efforts should be made to build sustainable funding models and research capacity in lower-middle income countries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10444,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Microbiology and Infection\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Microbiology and Infection\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2025.09.019\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Microbiology and Infection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2025.09.019","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:通过研究高影响力期刊上的资金来源与试验地点之间的关系,绘制传染病随机临床试验(rct)的资金流图。方法:我们对先前发表的一项系统综述进行了二次分析,该综述纳入了2014-2023年期间在10种高影响力英语普通医学和传染病期刊上发表的1343项传染病随机对照试验。使用标准化数据提取表提取资金来源、研究地点和疾病重点,并使用世界银行分类按国家收入水平进行分析,使用全球热图可视化供资和研究地点的地理分布。国家收入群体之间的资金流动使用桑基图可视化。结果:1343项试验中,1326项披露了资金来源(98.7%)。本综述中发现的大多数试验是研究者发起的(772/1326,58.2%),美国政府是最大的资助者(366/1326,27.6%),美国国立卫生研究院特别参与了258/1326(19.5%)试验的资助。当分类时,共有1808个独特的资助者。这些疾病绝大多数来自高收入国家(1496/1808,82.7%),而中高收入国家(130/1808,7.2%)、中低收入国家(35/1808,1.9%)和低收入国家(8/1808,0.4%)。相比之下,按国家分列的4606个研究地点,更多地分布在收入水平上:高收入(2521/4606,61.9%)、中高收入(918/4606,22.5%)、中低收入(360/4606,8.8%)、低收入(253/4606,6.2%)。疾病焦点在地理上存在差异;重点关注重症监护、细菌感染、性传播感染、肝炎、流感和COVID-19的试验在低收入环境中代表性不足。结论:我们的研究揭示了这10种精选的英语高影响力期刊上发表的传染病随机对照试验在全球范围内的地理和资金分布是倾斜的。随着主要资助者在国际上减少资助,对研究前景的影响可能不成比例地影响到中低收入国家。应该进一步努力在中低收入国家建立可持续的资助模式和研究能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Funding and geographical distribution of clinical trials in infectious diseases.

Objectives: To map funding flows in infectious disease randomized clinical trials (RCTs) by examining relationships between funding sources and trial locations in high impact journals.

Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a previously published systematic review of 1,343 infectious disease RCTs published (2014-2023) in ten selected high-impact English language general medicine and infectious disease journals. Funding source, study site, and disease focus were extracted using a standardized data extraction form, and analysed by country income level using World Bank classifications Geographical distributions of funding and study sites were visualized using global heat maps. Funding flows between country income groups were visualized using a Sankey plot.

Results: Of the 1343 trials, 1326 disclosed funding source (98.7%). Most trials identified in this review were investigator-initiated (772/1326, 58.2%), with the U.S. government as the largest contributing funder (366/1326, 27.6%), with the National Institutes of Health specifically involved in funding 258/1326 (19.5%) of trials. When disaggregated, there was a total of 1808 unique funders. These overwhelmingly originated from high-income countries (1496/1808, 82.7%) compared to upper-middle income (130/1808, 7.2%), low-middle income (35/1808, 1.9%), and low-income (8/1808, 0.4%) countries. In contrast, the 4606 disaggregated locations of study by country, were more distributed across income levels: high-income (2521/4606 61.9%), upper-middle income (918/4606, 22.5%), lower-middle income (360/4606, 8,8%), low-income (253/4606, 6.2%). Disease focus varied geographically; trials focusing on critical care, bacterial infections, sexually transmitted infections, hepatitis, influenza, and COVID-19 were underrepresented in low-income settings.

Conclusion: Our study reveals skewed geographical and funding distributions in the global landscape of infectious disease RCTs published in these 10 selected English language high-impact journals. As key funders reduce funding internationally, the impact on the research landscape may disproportionately affect lower-middle income countries. Further efforts should be made to build sustainable funding models and research capacity in lower-middle income countries.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
25.30
自引率
2.10%
发文量
441
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Microbiology and Infection (CMI) is a monthly journal published by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. It focuses on peer-reviewed papers covering basic and applied research in microbiology, infectious diseases, virology, parasitology, immunology, and epidemiology as they relate to therapy and diagnostics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信