A descriptive analysis of funding in research articles published in Revista médica de Chile between 2017-2021.

Date & Time
Tuesday, September 5, 2023, 12:30 PM - 2:00 PM
Location Name
Session Type
Information retrieval
Flores N1, Briceño F1, Villagran S1, Grandi D1, Riva N1, Morales D1, Marambio B1, Madrid E2
1School of Medicine Universidad Valparaíso, Chile
2Interdisciplinary Centre for Health Studies Universidad de Valparaíso - Cochrane Chile, Chile

Background: RevMedChile is the oldest monthly journal of Chilean health science which is responsible for publishing original articles related to internal medicine and its derived subspecialties from different countries. It is the Chilean journal of health science with the highest indexes h5 (26) and m5 (40) in the year 2021 according to SCImago Journal Rank (SJR). Funding is crucial for research; without it, researchers cannot conduct any investigation or publish in journals, making them uncompetitive in the scientific community. The global average of research and development (R&D) spending as a fraction of GDP is around 2.274%; in Chile, only 0.34% of the IBP goes to R&D.
Objectives: To describe the conflicts of interest disclosed by the authors of clinical and preclinical research articles published in Rev Med Chile between 2017 and 2021.
Methods: We retrieved every article published in Rev Med Chile during 2017-2021 and made a full text review to identify the first author, country, theme, methodology, conflict of interest, and founding, all of them declared on the articles. Then, we classified their funding whether it came from the government, the academia, private companies, private clinics, public hospitals, or none of them and calculated their frequency and correlated it to its country, theme, methodology, and conflict of interest. Preliminary
Results: We found 1,056 articles, of which 667 (63.1%) declared they did not receive any funding, 95 (8.9%) received funds from the Chilean government through R&D programs, 61 (5.7%) from the academia, 9 (0.8%) from private hospitals, 8 (0.7%) from private companies, 5 (0.4%) from foreign scholarships, 4 (0.3%) from foreign governments, 2 (0.1%) from public hospitals, 2 (0.1%) from medical societies, and 1 (0.09%) from a civilian organization. Fifty-seven (9.4%) received funding from two sources and 145 (13.7%) did not declare if they received any funding.
Conclusions: Final conclusion and results will be presented in Cochrane’s colloquium. Patient, public, and/or healthcare consumer involvement: Patients, the public, and/or healthcare consumers were not involved in this study.