Global Biomedical R&amp;D Expenditures

doi:10.1056/nejmc1405176

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Or, given the large increases in the annual health research expenditures of several Asian countries in recent years, was simply more money spent on health research, with larger numbers of clinical trials being the conducted as a result? 12 13 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To be able to provide an insight into developments in the proportion of trials that were registered in various countries, we compared the annual number of trials registered for recruitment in these countries to the countries’ combined public and private expenditures on health research (under the assumption that if the number of trials registered increased relative to countries’ health research expenditures, the proportion of trials that was registered may have increased). Data on countries’ public and private health research expenditures combined were derived from publications by Chakma et al 12 and Young et al , 13 14 and were available from 2007 to 2012 for Australia, Canada, China, Europe, India, Japan, South Korea and the USA.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trends in global clinical trial registration: an analysis of numbers of registered clinical trials in different parts of the world from 2004 to 2013

Viergever

Li²

2015

BMJ Open

181

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo analyse developments (and their causes) in the number and proportion of clinical trials that were registered in different parts of the world after the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) announced in 2004 that it would require registration of clinical trials as a condition for publication.SettingThe International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).DesignThe ICTRP database was searched for all clinical trials that were registered up to 31 December 2013.ResultsThe ICTRP database contained data on 186 523 interventional clinical trials. The annual number of registered clinical trials increased from 3294 in 2004 to 23 384 in 2013. Relative to the number of clinical trial research publications, the global number of registered clinical trials increased fivefold between 2004 and 2013, rising particularly strongly between 2004 and 2005. In certain regions, especially Asia, the annual number of registered trials increased more gradually and continued to increase up to 2013. In India and Japan, two countries with marked but more gradual increases, these increases only happened after several local measures were implemented that encouraged and enforced registration. In most regions, there was a trend toward trials being registered at local registries.ConclusionsClinical trial registration has greatly improved transparency in clinical trial research. However, these improvements have not taken place equally in all parts of the world. Achieving compliance with registration requires a coalescence of global and local measures, and remains a key challenge in many countries. Poor quality of registered trial data and the inaccessibility of trial protocols, results and participant-level data further undermine the potential benefits of clinical trial registration. National and regional registries and the ICTRP have played a leading role in achieving the successes of trial registration to date and should be supported in addressing these challenges in the future.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in global clinical trial registration: an analysis of numbers of registered clinical trials in different parts of the world from 2004 to 2013

Viergever

Li²

2015

BMJ Open

181

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By contrast, for total world-wide biomedical R&D expenditure, we used figures provided by Chakma et al, who use publicly reported as well as interpolated data ( 25 ). Moreover, uncertainties are attached to the measures used by Chakma et al for inflation and purchasing power adjustments, as pointed out by Young et al ( 28 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For our own calculations, we used the National Institutes of Health Biomedical R&D Price Index to adjust for inflation, which is an equally imperfect measure ( 28 ). Uncertainties are also attached to the disease burden data we use ( 19 , 20 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Poverty-related and neglected diseases – an economic and epidemiological analysis of poverty relatedness and neglect in research and development

Philipsborn

Steinbeis

Bender

et al. 2015

Global Health Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEconomic growth in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) has raised interest in how disease burden patterns are related to economic development. Meanwhile, poverty-related diseases are considered to be neglected in terms of research and development (R&D).ObjectivesDeveloping intuitive and meaningful metrics to measure how different diseases are related to poverty and neglected in the current R&D system.DesignWe measured how diseases are related to economic development with the income relation factor (IRF), defined by the ratio of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) per 100,000 inhabitants in LMIC versus that in high-income countries. We calculated the IRF for 291 diseases and injuries and 67 risk factors included in the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. We measured neglect in R&D with the neglect factor (NF), defined by the ratio of disease burden in DALYs (as percentage of the total global disease burden) and R&D expenditure (as percentage of total global health-related R&D expenditure) for 26 diseases.ResultsThe disease burden varies considerably with the level of economic development, shown by the IRF (median: 1.38; interquartile range (IQR): 0.79–6.3). Comparison of IRFs from 1990 to 2010 highlights general patterns of the global epidemiological transition. The 26 poverty-related diseases included in our analysis of neglect in R&D are responsible for 13.8% of the global disease burden, but receive only 1.34% of global health-related R&D expenditure. Within this group, the NF varies considerably (median: 19; IQR: 6–52).ConclusionsThe IRF is an intuitive and meaningful metric to highlight shifts in global disease burden patterns. A large shortfall exists in global R&D spending for poverty-related and neglected diseases, with strong variations between diseases.

show abstract

“…Estimates of changes in the level and structure of national, regional, and global expenditures on health research and development (R&D) are an important source of information for advancing countries’ health research policies. However, such estimates are difficult to compile and comparison between countries needs careful calibration [ 1 ].…”

Section: Difficulties In Comparing Countries’ Health-related Randd Expementioning

confidence: 99%

Global trends in health research and development expenditures – the challenge of making reliable estimates for international comparison

Young

Terry²,

Røttingen

et al. 2015

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Better estimates of changes in the level and structure of national, regional, and global expenditures on health research and development (R&D) are needed as an important source of information for advancing countries’ health research policies. However, such estimates are difficult to compile and comparison between countries needs careful calibration. We outline the steps that need to be taken to make reliable estimates of trends in countries’ expenditures on health R&D, describe that an ideal approach would involve the use of international sets of deflators and exchange rates that are specific to health R&D activities, and explain which methods should be used given the current absence of such health R&D-specific deflators and exchange rates. Finally, we describe what should be the way forward in improving our ability to make reliable estimates of trends in countries’ health R&D expenditures.

show abstract

Global Biomedical R&D Expenditures

Cited by 6 publications

References 7 publications

Trends in global clinical trial registration: an analysis of numbers of registered clinical trials in different parts of the world from 2004 to 2013

Trends in global clinical trial registration: an analysis of numbers of registered clinical trials in different parts of the world from 2004 to 2013

Poverty-related and neglected diseases – an economic and epidemiological analysis of poverty relatedness and neglect in research and development

Global trends in health research and development expenditures – the challenge of making reliable estimates for international comparison

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About