Skip to content

K $20 Research Papers

1. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

2. Granata AV, Hillman AL. Competing practice guidelines: using cost-effectiveness analysis to make optimal decisions. Ann Intern Med 1998;128: 56-63. [PubMed]

3. Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Lohr KN, Teutsch S, Mandelblatt J. Challenges in systematic reviews of economic analyses. Ann Intern Med 2005;142: 1073-9. [PubMed]

4. Laupacis A. Incorporating economic evaluations into decision-making: the Ontario experience. Med Care 2005;43(suppl 7): 15-9. [PubMed]

5. Hill SR, Mitchell AS, Henry DA. Problems with the interpretation of pharmacoeconomic analyses: a review of submissions to the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme. JAMA 2000;283: 2116-21. [PubMed]

6. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992;146: 473-81. [PMC free article][PubMed]

7. Owens DK. Interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses. J Gen Intern Med 1998;13: 716-7. [PMC free article][PubMed]

8. Evans C, Tavakoli M, Crawford B. Use of quality adjusted life years and life years gained as benchmarks in economic evaluations: a critical appraisal. Health Care Manage Sci 2004;7: 43-9. [PubMed]

9. Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, Mavros P, Jonsson B. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health 2004;7: 518-28. [PubMed]

10. Neumann PJ, Stone PW, Chapman RH, Sandberg EA, Bell CM. The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976-1997. Ann Intern Med 2000;132: 964-72. [PubMed]

11. Neumann PJ, Greenberg D, Olchanski NV, Stone PW, Rosen AB. Growth and quality of the cost utility literature, 1976-2001. Value Health 2005;8: 3-9. [PubMed]

12. Chapman RH, Stone PW, Sandberg EA, Bell C, Neumann PJ. A comprehensive league table of cost-utility ratios and a sub-table of “panel-worthy” studies. Med Decis Making 2000;20: 451-67. [PubMed]

13. Greenberg D, Rosen AB, Olchanski NV, Stone PW, Nadai J, Neumann PJ. Delays in publication of cost utility analyses conducted alongside clinical trials: registry analysis. BMJ 2004;328: 1536-7. [PMC free article][PubMed]

14. Monthly exchange rates series. Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis. (accessed 9 Feb 2006).

15. O'Brien BJ, Gertsen K, Willan AR, Faulkner LA. Is there a kink in consumers' threshold value for cost-effectiveness in health care? Health Econ 2002;11: 175-80. [PubMed]

16. Zeger SL, Liang KY, Albert PS. Models for longitudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics 1988;44: 1049-60. [PubMed]

17. Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, Safran DG, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, et al. Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal 1995;15: 369-90. [PubMed]

18. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Common drug review submission guidelines. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA), 2005. (accessed 9 Feb 2006).

19. Oliver A, Healey A, Donaldson C. Choosing the method to match the perspective: economic assessment and its implications for health-services efficiency. Lancet 2002;359: 1771-4. [PubMed]

20. Miners AH, Garau M, Fidan D, Fischer AJ. Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study. BMJ 2005;330: 65. [PMC free article][PubMed]

21. Neumann PJ, Sandberg EA, Bell CM, Stone PW, Chapman RH. Are pharmaceuticals cost-effective? A review of the evidence. Health Aff (Millwood) 2000;19: 92-109. [PubMed]

22. Freemantle N, Mason J. Publication bias in clinical trials and economic analyses. Pharmacoeconomics 1997;12: 10-6. [PubMed]

23. Hillman AL, Eisenberg JM, Pauly MV, Bloom BS, Glick H, Kinosian B, et al. Avoiding bias in the conduct and reporting of cost-effectiveness research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. N Engl J Med 1991;324: 1362-5. [PubMed]

24. Rennie D. Peer review in Prague. JAMA 1998;280: 214-5. [PubMed]

25. Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2004;13: 437-52. [PubMed]

26. Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, Fendrick AM, Weissert WG. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 2000;20: 332-42. [PubMed]

27. Garber AM, Phelps CE. Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1997;16: 1-31. [PubMed]

28. Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. A suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17: 461-77. [PubMed]

29. Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 2004;8: 1-172. [PubMed]

30. Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices—modeling studies. Value Health 2003;6: 9-17. [PubMed]

31. Sharp DW. What can and should be done to reduce publication bias? The perspective of an editor. JAMA 1990;263: 1390-1. [PubMed]

32. Chalmers TC, Frank CS, Reitman D. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. JAMA 1990;263: 1392-5. [PubMed]

33. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 1990;263: 1385-9. [PubMed]

34. Haivas I, Schroter S, Waechter F, Smith R. Editors' declaration of their own conflicts of interest. Can Med Assoc J 2004;171: 475-6. [PMC free article][PubMed]

35. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003;326: 1167-70. [PMC free article][PubMed]

36. Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ, Nelson W, Bennett CL. Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA 1999;282: 1453-7. [PubMed]

37. Kassirer JP, Angell M. The journal's policy on cost-effectiveness analyses. N Engl J Med 1994;331: 669-70. [PubMed]

38. Ray JG. Judging the judges: the role of journal editors. QJM 2002;95: 769-74. [PubMed]

39. Murray MD, Birt JA, Manatunga AK, Darnell JC. Medication compliance in elderly out-patients using twice-daily dosing and unit-of-use packaging. Ann Pharmacother 1993;27(5): 616-21. [PubMed]

40. Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith H, Jr. Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1987;8: 343-53. [PubMed]

41. Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D, Dickersin K, Flanagin A, Hogan JW, et al. Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA 2002;287: 2825-8. [PubMed]

42. Baker CB, Johnsrud MT, Crismon ML, Rosenheck RA, Woods SW. Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants. Br J Psychiatry 2003;183: 498-506. [PubMed]

A project I’m working on needed a back-of-the-envelope estimate for the average number of papers produced per grant-funding-dollar.  This average obviously varies by discipline and grant type and country, and depends on whether the grant funds are direct funding or total etc…. but I just wanted an order of magnitude estimate and so was willing to put up with some very disparate information sources within North America.

To my surprise, the answers were quite similar across a wide variety of sources.  None of the studies calculated a #papers/$funding number explicitly, but they gave #papers and $funding estimates so I could do the division.  The consensus:  between 0.6 and 5 published papers per $100k in funding.

Here are my rough notes, in case anyone else wants to check these numbers for their own purposes.

Boyack, K., & Borner, K. (2003). Indicator-assisted evaluation and funding of research: Visualizing the influence of grants on the number and citation counts of research papers Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (5), 447-461 DOI: 10.1002/asi.10230

Funding by NIA, grants 1993-1997

5 per $100k

(434 pubs at all institutions/23 institutions)/3.53 avg funding per institution = 5.0991501416430598

Druss, B., & Marcus, S. (2005). Tracking publication outcomes of National Institutes of Health grants The American Journal of Medicine, 118 (6), 658-663 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.02.015

NIH grants

3.2 papers per $100k in annual funding

.032 per $1k
7.58 papers per grant / 239.82600 in annual funding = 0.0316062479

Gaughan, M., & Bozeman, B. (2002). Using curriculum vitae to compare some impacts of NSF research grants with research center funding Research Evaluation, 11 (1), 17-26 DOI: 10.3152/147154402781776952

CVs of researchers in NSF centers in about 2000?

0.9 pubs/year/$100k in funding

In [28]: 3.78/437 * 100

Out[28]: 0.86498855835240274

Hendrix, D. (2008). An analysis of bibliometric indicators, National Institutes of Health funding, and faculty size at Association of American Medical Colleges medical schools, 1997–2007 Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 96 (4), 324-334 DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.96.4.007

National Institutes of Health (NIH)–funding data for Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) member schools during 1997 to 2007

1.5 papers per $100k

In [29]: 9524/624039.284
Out[29]: 0.01526185970048642

In [30]: 9524/624039.284*100
Out[30]: 1.526185970048642

Leydesdorff L, Wagner C. Research Funding and Research Output: A Bibliometric Contribution to the US Federal Research Roadmap. 2009:1-16.

Higher-Education Expenditure for R&D (HERD) in the OECD statistics for all of the USA, 2007

0.57 publications per $100k
1.0/1.75 = 0.57

Larivière, V., Macaluso, B., Archambault, E., & Gingras, Y. (2010). Which scientific elites? On the concentration of research funds, publications and citations Research Evaluation, 19 (1), 45-53 DOI: 10.3152/095820210X492495

Canada all funded research in Quebec’s universities 1999–2006

0.92 per $100k

In [36]: 62026/6760445.931*100
Out[36]: 0.91748385584418335

Like this:



Comments (2)