Comparing cutaneous research funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) with the US skin disease burden

Abstract

Skin disease burden measured by disability-adjusted life year metrics partially correlates with NIH funding prioritization. Comparing US disease burden with NIH funding suggests possible underfunded and overfunded skin diseases.

Use of the hCONSORT criteria as a reporting standard for herbal interventions for common dermatoses: a systematic review

“…Only two criteria (proprietary name and rationale for placebo/control) were reported by > 50% of the articles in our dataset (see Table ). As we examined three of the most common chronic skin diseases encountered in practice, which have many available CAM interventions on the market, this may suggest a real gap in providing necessary knowledge for practising dermatologists.…”

Limited alignment of publicly competitive disease funding with disease burden in Japan

“…Given these potential contributors to decision-making about funding allocation, perfect alignment with DALYs or any other measure of disease burden would not be expected. However, faced with competing priorities for scarce resources on health research, DALYs, a comprehensive health measure that reflects the aging of the population and public health needs, should be considered as an important benchmark in assuming research priorities for funding decisions [2,3,5,[46][47][48][49][50]. For instance, after a long discussion on what indicators to consider in the US https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228542.g002 [44,51,52], which is the largest investor in health R&D in the world [11]; the National Institutes of Health (NIH) noted in its recent strategic plan that DALYs would serve as a crucial consideration in aligning NIH's research priorities with public health needs [53].…”

Academic characteristics for successful national institutes of health funding in dermatology

“…Other investigators have compared cutaneous research funding by the NIH, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; however, to the authors' knowledge, this study is the first attempt at using both traditional and non-traditional metrics to characterize NIH funding in the department of dermatology [12,13].…”