Druss Benjamin G, Marcus Steven C
Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Am J Med. 2005 Jun;118(6):658-63. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.02.015.
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.
Data on all investigator-initiated R01 grants funded during 1996 (n = 18211) 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).
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.
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.
同行评审文献是资助研究结果由更广泛的科学界进行评估并传播的主要媒介。本研究探讨美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）资助的科研项目何时以及如何促成论文发表。
从NIH的科研项目信息计算机检索网站提取了1996年期间资助的所有研究者发起的R01项目的数据（n = 18211）。利用稿件中报告的NIH项目编号，将这些数据与每个项目完成期间及之后4年内发表的所有MEDLINE文章相关联。分析考察了所有关联出版物以及核心期刊（179种期刊，包括科学信息研究所排名前100的期刊或120种《医学索引节略版》期刊）中出版物的数量、时间以及相关因素。
平均而言，每个项目产生7.6篇MEDLINE论文（95%置信区间[CI]：7.47至7.69）以及1.61篇核心期刊论文（95%CI：1.56至1.65）。在大学层面的多变量分析中，与新项目相比，竞争性延续项目、由基础科学研究小组评审的项目、正教授主持的项目以及《美国新闻与世界报道》排名前10的有研究生项目的大学所产生的核心期刊论文和稿件更多。然而，所有项目、研究者和机构层面每个项目都产生了大量的出版物。
这些发现支持了研究资助与研究结果之间联系的努力的可行性和潜在效用，这是资助科研通向改善临床和公共卫生这一过程的早期步骤。
