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

Article type
Flores N1, Briceño F1, Morales D1, Cabrera C2, Villagran S1, Grandi D1, Riva N1, Cruzat B1, Garnham R3, Meza N4, Madrid E5, Bracchiglione J6
1School of Medicine Universidad Valparaíso
2School of Medicine Universidad de Valparaíso
3Interdisciplinary Centre for Health Studies (CIESAL), Universidad de Valparaíso, Viña del Mar
42Interdisciplinary Centre for Health Studies (CIESAL), Universidad de Valparaíso, Viña del Mar
5Interdisciplinary Centre for Health Studies Universidad de Valparaíso - Cochrane Chile
Background: Revista Médica de Chile (RMC) is the oldest Chilean journal of medical science. It is responsible for publishing original articles monthly which include a broad spectrum of the medical fields and receive papers 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).
The global average of research and development spending as a fraction of GDP is around 2.274%, in Chile only 0,34% of the IBP goes to funding research.

Objectives: To describe the source of funding and conflicts of interest disclosed by the authors of clinical and preclinical research articles published in RMC between 2017-2021.

Methods: We retrieved every article published in RMC during 2017-2021 and made a full text review to identify the first author, country, theme, methodology, conflict of interest and funding, all of them declared on the articles. Then, we classified their source of funding and calculated their frequency.

Preliminary Results: We found 896 articles, of which 581 (64.8%) declared they did not receive any funding, 102 (11.3%) received funds from the Chilean government through R&D programs, 53 (5.9%) from the academia, 10 (1.1%) from private hospitals, 12 (1.3%) from private companies, 7 (0.7%) from foreign governments, 4 (0.4%) from public hospitals, 3 (0.3%) from medical societies and 3 (0.3%) from a civilian organization. 15 (1.6%) received funding from two sources and 106 (11.8%) did not declare if they received any funding.

Conclusions: Most of the clinical and preclinical studies published in RMC between 2017-2021 reported not receiving funding. Most of the studies declared not having conflict of interest, but more than 10% of them did not declare it.

Patient, public, and/or healthcare consumer involvement: Patients, the public, and/or healthcare consumers were not involved in this study.