Leon Mateo G, Crowe Ellen H, Chen Han-Yang, Wagner Stephen M, Lambert Katherine, Irwin Shelby, Chauhan Suneet P
Division of Advanced Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, USA.
Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, USA.
Cureus. 2025 Jun 10;17(6):e85730. doi: 10.7759/cureus.85730. eCollection 2025 Jun.
Objectives The aim of this study was to report on Research Project Grants (R01) funding in gynecology and to assess its impact on peer-reviewed publications and their incorporation into the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) practice guidelines. Methods This cross-sectional study was performed using data obtained from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Report and Tools Expenditure and Results (RePORTER). Publications stemming from R01 grants were determined by extracting the publication list from the individual project data pages. ACOG Practice Bulletins and Committee Opinions related to gynecology were screened. If the principal investigator associated with the R01 grant was referenced in the guidelines, the citation was cross-referenced with the NIH RePORTER website to confirm its origin and incorporation into practice guidelines. Results Gynecology received 0.1-0.2% of the over $40 billion total NIH funding. Gynecologic R01 funding increased by 57.7% between 2000 and 2005 and by 55.5% between 2005 and 2010, but it increased minimally between 2010 and 2015 (2.5%). The number of grants followed a similar trend, with a decrease of -36.8% by 2015. Between 2000 and 2010, gynecology had 50% to 70% less funding when compared with obstetrics and urology. During these years, 40% of states did not get a single R01 grant. Since 2005, less than 1% of publications have been referenced in ACOG guidelines and 0.3% or less have been linked to practice recommendations. Out of 5,663 publications, only 11 have been linked with recommendations since the year 2000. Conclusion Fewer than 0.3% of R01 grants focused on gynecologic topics, and there was a relative decline in the number of grants and NIH funding allocated to gynecology. The number of publications referenced in ACOG guidelines and linked to recommendations remains minimal, emphasizing a need to fund topics that influence national guidelines.
目的 本研究旨在报告妇科领域的研究项目基金（R01）资助情况，并评估其对同行评审出版物以及这些出版物纳入美国妇产科医师学会（ACOG）实践指南的影响。方法 本横断面研究使用了从美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）研究项目在线报告与工具支出及结果（RePORTER）获取的数据。通过从各个项目数据页面提取出版物列表来确定源自R01资助的出版物。对与妇科相关的ACOG实践公告和委员会意见进行筛选。如果R01资助的主要研究者在指南中被引用，则将该引用与NIH RePORTER网站进行交叉核对，以确认其来源并纳入实践指南。结果 妇科获得的资助占NIH超过400亿美元总资助的0.1% - 0.2%。2000年至2005年期间，妇科R01资助增长了57.7%，2005年至2010年期间增长了55.5%，但2010年至2015年期间增长幅度极小（2.5%）。资助数量呈现类似趋势，到2015年减少了 - 36.8%。2000年至2010年期间，与产科和泌尿科相比，妇科获得的资助少50%至70%。在这些年里，40%的州未获得一项R01资助。自2005年以来，ACOG指南中引用的出版物不到1%，与实践建议相关的不到0.3%。自2000年以来，在5663篇出版物中，只有11篇与建议相关。结论 专注于妇科主题的R01资助不到0.3%，分配给妇科的资助数量和NIH资金相对下降。ACOG指南中引用并与建议相关的出版物数量仍然很少，这凸显了资助对国家指南有影响的主题的必要性。
