Analysing research trends: A descriptive study of abstracts submitted to the African Conference on Emergency Medicine 2024

NIH Launches Emergency Care Research Office: Coordinating Center Lauded but Challenges Noted

Despite recent strides in the development of global emergency medicine (EM), the field continues to lag in applying a scientific approach to identifying critical knowledge gaps and advancing evidence-based solutions to clinical and public health problems seen in emergency departments (EDs) worldwide. Here, progress on the global EM research agenda created at the 2013 Academic Emergency Medicine Global Health and Emergency Care Consensus Conference is evaluated and critical areas for future development in emergency care research internationally are identified. A retrospective review of all studies compiled in the Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review (GEMLR) database from 2013 through 2015 was conducted. Articles were categorized and analyzed using descriptive quantitative measures and structured data matrices. The Global Emergency Medicine Think Tank Clinical Research Working Group at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine 2016 Annual Meeting then further conceptualized and defined global EM research priorities utilizing consensus-based decision making. Research trends in global EM research published between 2013 and 2015 show a predominance of observational studies relative to interventional or descriptive studies, with the majority of research conducted in the inpatient setting in comparison to the ED or prehospital setting. Studies on communicable diseases and injury were the most prevalent, with a relative dearth of research on chronic noncommunicable diseases. The Global Emergency Medicine Think Tank Clinical Research Working Group identified conceptual frameworks to define high-impact research priorities, including the traditional approach of using global burden of disease to define priorities and the impact of EM on individual clinical care and public health opportunities. EM research is also described through a population lens approach, including gender, pediatrics, and migrant and refugee health. Despite recent strides in global EM research and a proliferation of scholarly output in the field, further work is required to advocate for and inform research priorities in global EM. The priorities outlined in this paper aim to guide future research in the field, with the goal of advancing the development of EM worldwide.

193 Development of Learning Objectives for a Standardized Pediatric Emergency Medicine Curriculum for the African Federation for Emergency Medicine

Role of emergency medicine residency programs in determining emergency medicine career choice among medical students

ObjectivesHealthcare is now routinely delivered by telecommunications-based services in all developed countries and an increasing number of developing countries. Telemedicine is used in many clinical specialities and across numerous healthcare settings, which range from mobile patient-centric applications to complex interactions amongst clinicians in tertiary referral hospital settings. This paper discusses some recent areas of significant development and progress in the field with the purpose of identifying strong trends in both research and practice activities.MethodsTo establish the breadth of new ideas and directions in the field, a review of literature was made by searching PubMed for recent publications including terms (telemedicine OR telehealth) AND (challenge OR direction OR innovation OR new OR novel OR trend), for all searchable categories. 3,433 publications were identified that have appeared since January 1, 2005 (2,172 of these since January 1, 2010), based on a search conducted on June 1, 2015.ResultsThe current interest areas in these papers span both synchronous telemedicine, including intensive care, emergency medicine, and mental health, and asynchronous telemedicine, including wound and burns care, dermatology and ophthalmology.ConclusionsIt is concluded that two major drivers of contemporary tele medicine development are a high volume demand for a particular clinical service, and/or a high criticality of need for clinical exper tise to deliver the service. These areas offer promise for further study and enhancement of applicable telemedicine methods and have the potential for large-scale deployments internationally, which would contribute significantly to the advancement of healthcare.

BackgroundExplainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has become increasingly relevant for ensuring transparency, interpretability, and trust in clinical decision support systems. In emergency medicine, where decision-making is time-critical and data are often incomplete, XAI provides significant opportunities while also raising ethical and methodological challenges. Despite the rapid growth of AI applications in acute care, bibliometric studies explicitly integrating explainability and ethics remain limited.MethodsA bibliometric analysis of 433 publications on XAI in emergency medicine was conducted using the Web of Science Core Collection. The search covered 1986 through November 2025 and included peer-reviewed research articles and reviews in English related to emergency medicine, artificial intelligence, explainability, and ethics. Bibliometric indicators (publication trends, citation counts, journals, authors, and countries) were analyzed using Bibliometrix (R), while VOSviewer was used to visualize thematic clusters and keyword co-occurrence. Citations were analyzed as cumulative counts up to November 2025 and normalized to per-publication counts per year.ResultsResearch output increased sharply after 2018, peaking in 2023 with approximately 90 publications, reflecting the growing focus on interpretability and transparency in emergency care. Cumulative citations exceeded 1,400 by 2025. The United States, the United Kingdom, and China were the most productive countries. Annals of Emergency Medicine, NPJ Digital Medicine, and BMJ Open were the most influential journals, while Ong M.E.H., Dwivedi G., Stewart J., Wang Y., and Li J. emerged as leading contributors. Thematic mapping revealed four major clusters: (1) methodological development of interpretable models, (2) clinical applications in triage, imaging, and sepsis risk prediction, (3) ethical and human-factor dimensions (bias, accountability, transparency), and (4) emerging topics such as large language models. Despite rapid progress, most studies remained retrospective and lacked standardized interpretability metrics, multicenter validation, and consistent reporting of explainability outputs.ConclusionResearch on XAI in emergency medicine is expanding rapidly and is increasingly shaped by a small group of influential journals and authors. However, critical gaps remain, including the limited availability of prospective studies, insufficient clinician involvement, and ethical frameworks that are not yet fully tailored to emergency settings. Addressing these gaps through multidisciplinary collaboration, standardized evaluation metrics, and stronger governance will be important to support transparency, accountability, and the safe clinical adoption of XAI in emergency medicine.

Exploring the Relationship Between the American Board of Emergency Medicine In-Training Exam Scores and Mandatory Didactic Attendance for Emergency Medicine Residents

Introduction:Emergency medicine is a relatively new and rapidly growing specialty, and its research monitoring is important for future policies. This study aimed to analyze the published literature related to emergency medicine, to create a documented research perspective for this field.Methods:This research is a bibliometric study that analyzes the research outputs of the subject area of emergency medicine indexed in the Web of Science database from the beginning to 2023. VOSviewer software was used to visualize and predict the trends in research on the topic.Results:The findings showed that the University of California, The Journal of Neurotrauma and Brain Injury, Elsevier, and the USA were the most prolific units in the cycle of scientific productions in the field of emergency medicine. Results showed that most scientific productions in this field fall into 6 clusters: psychological impressions, injuries caused by traumatic events and the effects of traumas on children, pathophysiology and nervous system issues and related diseases, complications of traumatic events and injuries, biomechanics and complications caused by sports injuries, and consciousness.Conclusion:In addition to interventions and clinical complications, research in the field of emergency medicine has also focused on psychological structures. So, based on various measurement indicators, the subjects of this field have been the focus of researchers' attention.

Publications des équipes françaises de médecine d’urgence. Où en est-on depuis cinq ans ?

January 1994 saw the launch of Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) as the official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM). Prior to that time, SAEM shared the Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians (JACEP), which evolved into the Annals of Emergency Medicine (Annals). Although I assisted with the birth of AEM, the substance of this journal has largely been the work of those editors who have followed my efforts: Michelle Biros and David Cone. We should briefly return to the birth of AEM and its associated labor pains. In 1990, while serving as SAEM president, like prior SAEM leaders, I helped renegotiate the affiliation agreement for SAEM's cosponsorship of Annals. It was clear to the SAEM board of directors that a culture clash existed at the time between the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and SAEM related to their cosponsored journal. Behind the culture clash of the practice arm of the specialty with the academic arm of the specialty was the reality that the major source of publishable material for Annals was the SAEM annual meeting, yet SAEM had little say in the content of the journal, its operations, or its finances. The Annals abrupt (albeit brief) change to a micro font size that challenged even those who had yet to require bifocals, and its increased emphasis on industry advertisements (and their placement within the journal content), both occurred without prior consultation with SAEM leadership. These actions reinforced to the SAEM leadership that it was time for change. Although Annals did not reflect the academic culture of SAEM, Annals and ACEP were increasingly benefitting from SAEM's increasingly popular annual meeting. Indeed, ACEP was demanding greater enforcement of Annals “right of first refusal” for manuscripts from work presented at the SAEM annual meeting. An SAEM journal task force subsequently determined that independent publication of an SAEM journal that would reflect the organization's unique culture and academic values, highlight SAEM activities, and essentially help brand SAEM within the house of emergency medicine was quite doable. The SAEM board decided in 1992 to move forward with the formation of its own journal at the expiration of its Annals cosponsorship affiliation agreement. Interestingly, SAEM negotiations on a potentially lucrative contract with a major publisher were abruptly terminated when it was determined that ACEP had signed with that same publisher to assume future publication of Annals, and the publisher no longer desired affiliation with SAEM. Fortunately, there were other suitors for SAEM (some large publishers and some small publishers), and an agreement was made with Hanley & Belfus, a publisher composed of former editors from WB Saunders. In retrospect, the personal attention of these journal publishers was quite valuable to the birth of AEM, although SAEM would later revisit the journal publisher contract with Hanley & Belfus. Although the transition from cosponsorship of Annals to sole sponsorship of AEM was challenging for SAEM, it was clearly necessary for SAEM to distinguish itself as the academic arm of the specialty of emergency medicine. Ironically, the accommodations and endorsement of academic freedom that SAEM embraced benefited both Annals and AEM. Historically, Annals had insisted upon the “right of first refusal” for all materials presented at the SAEM annual meeting. The SAEM leadership believed that presentation at its annual meeting should not be tied to a particular journal and that all journals should benefit from SAEM's scientific and educational forum. Although removing the restriction on journal publication site related to the annual meeting was the right action for SAEM to take, this action put the launch of AEM under greater pressure, as AEM would need to compete for the material presented at the SAEM annual meeting. The approach used by AEM to compete for these annual meeting manuscripts was to emphasize the academic culture of mentorship. Authors were encouraged to work with the reviewers and editorial board members in a collaborative manner to help deliver their knowledge to the membership of SAEM and beyond. A new format for supportive peer review of manuscripts was undertaken, with a synthesized consensus review provided with every submission. This synthesized review guided the author should he or she choose to resubmit to AEM or elsewhere, rather than mirroring the often conflicting and overly critical reviews that were common with other journals at the time. Further, journal reviewers were given the synthesized review (a novel concept at the time) so that they could also benefit from their peers thoughts and the wisdom of the editorial board. Finally, AEM began to recognize its better reviewers—as based on quality with quantity of reviews—and this recognition was openly published and shared with the leadership of the reviewers respective institutions. Other journals have subsequently adopted these practices. All new journals must prove their worth, and obtaining index status in Indicus Medicus such that articles will be electronically noted by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) is a major developmental milestone. Some predicted that it would take AEM a decade to be indexed in Indicus Medicus. Instead, this milestone occurred within 2 years of the launch of AEM—a near record achievement at the time. This achievement meant that the impact of AEM articles would reach throughout the NLM network. Further, this recognition was retrospective and went back to the original publication issue. There were many reasons for the original and continuing success of AEM. Most importantly, AEM has always reflected the culture of SAEM. The journal worked hard to manage potential conflicts and avoid overcommercialization. The journal was launched with a stellar editorial board—at least five of the 14 original members have gone on to be honored as members of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Sciences. Other editorial board members have served as SAEM presidents and in other major national or international offices. The first issue of AEM provided us the opportunity to showcase some journal innovations, including using a practical structured abstract format; highlighting study methods in a standard format; using a “further thoughts from the reviewers” section to capture valuable insights from the reviewers; using a separate “limitations” section to objectively note the limitations of our knowledge from the current study, given study realities; and using a “future questions” section to provide guidance to others seeking to extend the work of the authors. The content of the first issue, whose table of contents is reproduced elsewhere in this issue, reflected the breadth of the SAEM annual meeting with both scientific and educational articles and publication of the invited Kennedy Lecture from the 1990 annual meeting. That commentary on health care rationing by noted ethicist Arthur Caplan was accompanied by a commentary from Oregon Governor John A. Kitzhaber on access to care, controlling costs, and the Oregon Health Plan. These articles are as relevant to today's debate on national health care as they were when first published. In the same issue were two articles demonstrating that early cardiac marker elevations were associated with ischemic complications in chest pain patients. Clearly, the findings from these studies helped launch a revolution in the evaluation of chest pain patients that continues today. In reflecting upon my role in the development of the AEM editorial board, helping craft the journal's first policies and practices, and working with the entire membership of SAEM to bring about a journal that could bring pride to SAEM and reflect its values, this endeavor has been one of the most rewarding I have experienced in my short life. Yet, those authors who first submitted their knowledge to AEM and continue to reflect the academic and collaborative culture of SAEM deserve the most credit. Without their efforts, this journal that so aptly reflects SAEM's culture and essence would not have happened. It has been truly an honor to serve on the first leg of an editorial relay that will endure as long as SAEM endures. Jerris R. Hedges, MD, MS, MMM University of Hawaii–Manoa Editor-in-Chief, 1994–1997 The tireless and dedicated efforts of the founding AEM editorial board created a strong foundation for SAEM's new journal. In 1998, I assumed the editorship of the journal. A healthy and energetic tone had been set through the leadership of Jerris Hedges and the support of the SAEM Board of Directors, and this continued in the next phase of the journal's development. A number of key events shaped the second phase of the journal's growth. From 1998 to 2008, the publisher changed three times because of mergers, closures, and expansions within the medical publishing industry. While each change of publisher was a challenge, the long-term benefits were worth the aggravation. New publishers meant fresh ideas and a willingness to try new and better ways of creating the living document that we considered the journal to be. We acquired an electronic submission platform that eased the processing and tracking of an increasing number of manuscript submissions. We partnered with established distribution platforms such as the HINARI Programme, which allowed us to provide journal content to developing countries free of charge. We e-published abstracts from a variety of national and international scientific meetings that had no other means of disseminating their interesting content, and sometimes published the abstracts in their native languages. We developed a section called Dynamic Emergency Medicine that linked a static image and case presentation in the journal's print copy, to a dynamic image online, thus allowing for presentation of case studies in a unique way or procedural demonstrations relevant to daily emergency medicine practice. The SAEM Board of Directors responded to the journal's growth trajectory by increasing support personnel, and Sandi Arjona and Kathleen Seal entered into their key supportive roles, where they both still remain. It is clear that without their enthusiastic support and loyalty, the journal would have foundered under the sheer burden of a rapidly and ever-increasing workload. While it seemed intuitive that SAEM would always allow editorial decision-making to remain in the hands of the AEM editorial board, our editors witnessed events at other journals where political considerations of journal sponsors seemed to interfere with final journal content. With the encouragement of the SAEM Board of Directors, the AEM Editorial Independence Policy was developed, authored by Roger Lewis. The content of AEM has never been bound by any political constituents; the SAEM Board of Directors has wisely left the running of the journal to the capable hands of an outstanding editorial board. This has allowed for experimentation and innovation in journal content and management and has resulted in an outstanding final product. During this phase, the journal took on a more visible role in the SAEM annual meeting and began to host a series of reviewer's workshops and didactic sessions on scientific writing, ethics, and research designs. The SAEM board and the program committee added the editor-in-chief as a designated moderator of the plenary session, along with the president. Perhaps the most important event in the second phase of AEM was the development of the journal's annual consensus conferences. The concept (suggested by Jim Adams) was that our journal had a responsibility beyond the publication of original work; in addition, the journal should educate our readers about timely and controversial medical, social, and research issues in general, while stimulating thought and studying making these topics relevant to emergency medicine in particular. The consensus conference topics often (and serendipitously) paralleled topics currently under consideration by the Institute of Medicine, such as errors in medicine and disparities in care. The conferences have been organized by some of the most well-known thought leaders of our specialty, and the audiences often are the “who's who” of topic experts. A complete issue of the journal is dedicated each year to the proceedings of the annual consensus conference and related original work. Because of the timeliness of the yearly consensus conference topics, the conferences were able to self-fund within a few years of their initiation, with funding from U.S. and Canadian federal agencies and private foundations. Recent work by the current AEM editorial board has shown long-term and significant benefit of the AEM consensus conferences in terms of subsequent research efforts, publications, and funding. Again, a solid foundation had been set for the current phase of the journal's development. Michelle H. Biros, MD, MS Hennepin County Medical Center Editor-in-Chief, 1998–2008 Twenty volumes ago, in 1994, the journal had a 14-member editorial board, six issues per year, and 592 pages of content. Currently, we have a 70-member editorial board, 12 issues per year, about 1,600 pages of print content, and several dozen more pages of electronic content each year. Why such a large editorial board? First, as noted by our founding editor above, a “consensus review” is created for each paper, rather than simply forwarding the raw reviewer comments to the author, as many journals do, leaving the author to sort out the often confusing or even conflicting reviewer comments. Our consensus reviews are more user-friendly. They allow authors to focus on the key issues and eliminate conflicting statements, but take substantially more time and effort on the part of the decision editor. Our large editorial board permits us to spread this workload around and also ensures that we have adequate breadth of expertise and a significant number of editors with “niche” expertise in specific topic areas or research methodologies. For example, every survey submission is screened by one of two editors with masters-level education in survey methodology, and only those papers meeting basic methodology standards are sent for peer review. Finally, the large number of decision editors helps us maintain our very rapid turnaround times, by ensuring that no editor is working on too many papers simultaneously. Our diverse editorial board has also enabled us to add several unique sections to our journal in recent years, including our “Research Methods and Statistics” category, which provides detailed discussions of novel study methodologies and advanced statistical techniques that are likely not familiar to the typical reader; the “Biros Section on Research Ethics,” which celebrates the work of the previous editor-in-chief by providing a forum for work on the ethics of clinical research in emergency medicine; and our newest section, “Evidence-Based Diagnostics,” with articles that seek to answer diagnostic clinical questions on a single topic pertinent to most emergency physicians using a diagnostic systematic review. (An online tool is planned that will allow the reader to literally take the EBD to the patient's bedside to assist in real-time clinical decision-making.) Our new “Peer-Reviewed Lectures” (PeRLs) section is a joint effort of SAEM, the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD), and ACEP, with an editorial subboard of education experts from all three organizations, offering clinician-educators an avenue to receive academic “credit” for high-quality lecture presentations. (We also have a number of peer reviewers from CORD who assist with the review of “Educational Advances” papers.) Finally, our editorial board is supplemented by a cadre of statistical reviewers (both quantitative and qualitative) who review all data-based submissions to help assure methodologic rigor. I assumed the editorship of AEM in January 2009, fairly soon after we entered into a publishing contract with Wiley/Blackwell. Thanks to the efforts of Jerris Hedges in founding the journal and Michelle Biros in seeing it through adolescence into adulthood, I inherited a journal that was (and still is) running along quite nicely. With stable finances, a strong editorial board, and a supportive publisher, there were no major challenges or problems awaiting me, allowing me to focus on the growth missions that the SAEM board and the journal's editorial board had identified. Two of the most important of these areas of focus have been increasing the value of the journal to the international community (through Spanish abstracts and publishing the ICEM abstracts, for example) and advancing our electronic publication offerings. The medical publishing enterprise is changing rapidly, and as “early adopters,” we emergency physicians like to position ourselves on the leading edge of such change. We have already added several electronic publishing features to the journal, and more are planned in the next few years. Importantly, our publisher's “Article Anywhere” system is currently in beta-testing with a European chemistry journal, and we expect to be among the first of Wiley's medical journals to use this new platform, hopefully early in 2013. This format will provide a much more intuitive and usable electronic format for our papers—a vast improvement over simply reading the PDF on a mobile device. Our focus on global emergency medicine continues: we look to publish high-quality research papers from outside of North America, and our consensus conference this May in Atlanta will be entitled “Global Health and Emergency Care: A Research Agenda.” The journal has come a long way since 1994—the year in which the father of a close medical school friend, who at the time was chair of gastroenterology at a large academic medical center in Washington, DC, opined over dinner one night that “academic emergency medicine” seemed an oxymoron. I was visiting his home while attending the 1994 SAEM annual meeting—still a resident and reluctant to challenge this very senior colleague. But even then, I knew that “academic” and “emergency medicine” go together well, and this journal is the proof. Our sponsoring society and our publisher are both vibrant, growing enterprises, and we will continue to work together to bring the best scientific content to our readers. Our superb editorial office staff of Sandi Arjona (Journal Manager) and Kathleen Seal (Peer Review Coordinator and Technical Editor) is available to assist editors, authors, reviewers, and readers at any time. But what can you do to help the journal advance SAEM's missions? First, you can send us your first paper and your best paper. We promise prompt turnaround, supportive reviews, and off-line assistance and mentoring, just as when the journal was founded. Second, you can help oversee and ensure the quality of the journal by serving as a volunteer peer reviewer. We are always in need of readers with at least one or two first-authored peer-reviewed papers under their belts to help us maintain the quality of the journal. Finally, you can strive to help advance all aspects of our specialty, in clinical practice, research, and teaching, so that even an old-school gastroenterologist won't think of Academic Emergency Medicine as an oxymoron. David C. Cone, MD Yale University School of Medicine Editor-in-Chief, 2009–

Bibliometric Analysis of 25 Years of Emergency Medicine Research in Latin America.

Objective: This study aims to comprehensively evaluate the scientific contributions, research trends, and influential studies related to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), a critical life-saving intervention in cases of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA). By performing a bibliometric analysis of academic articles published between 1980 and 2023 in the Web of Science (WoS) database, the study seeks to identify key trends, thematic areas, and advancements in CPR research to provide valuable insights for guiding future studies and enhancing emergency medicine practices. Methods: This study conducted a bibliometric analysis of academic articles on CPR published between 1980 and 2023 in the WoS database. A total of 4393 articles were examined to identify trends and contributions to the scientific literature. Various metrics were analyzed, including publication counts, citation rates, leading countries and institutions, prominent researchers, and the most cited studies. Performance analysis, keyword analysis, co-citation analysis, and thematic analyses were performed. Results: The analysis revealed concentrated topics in CPR research and evolving trends over time. The findings showed significant contributions from leading countries, institutions, and researchers. The most cited studies highlighted key areas of focus and advancements in CPR practices. Thematic analysis indicated the major research themes and their development over the decades. Conclusion: This bibliometric analysis provides an in-depth examination of the place and importance of CPR in emergency medicine. It offers a comprehensive perspective on the current state and future directions of CPR research. The findings help us better understand CPR's position in the scientific literature and its contributions to emergency medicine practices. These insights will guide future research directions and enhance scientific contributions to CPR practices in emergency medicine

The views and experiences of Zambia's emergency medicine registrars in South Africa: Lessons for the development of emergency care in Zambia.

Background: Machine learning, as an important branch of artificial intelligence, is more and more widely used in emergency medicine, including triage, disease diagnosis, treatment, prognosis prediction, and more. By analyzing the publication status of the literature related to machine learning in emergency medicine through bibliometric analysis, our purpose was to enlighten trends and hotspots for the future development of machine learning in emergency medicine. Method: Two researchers retrieved and screened all the literature related to machine learning in emergency medicine from Jan. 2014 to Dec. 2023 on the Web of Science. Excel, VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and the Online Analysis Platform of Literature Metrology were applied to visualize the research trends and study the co-occurring keywords in machine learning in emergency medicine. Results: 536 publications with a total citation of 5,181 times were identified. The global articles have increased over the past decade, and developed countries contribute the most. The United States contributed the most number of publications (34.7%), the highest number of citations (2,412), and the H-index (12.97). The number of publications from China ranked second, and the citations were 327 times with an H-index of 11, which ranked sixth and tied for second respectively. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine is the journal published most in machine learning in emergency medicine. In the identification research cluster, “mortality” and “risk” are determined to be the hotspot, while “emergency medical services” and “out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA)” are the new trend in machine learning in emergency medicine. Conclusion: In the past decade, research on machine learning in emergency medicine has increased gradually and will increase rapidly in the next decade. The United States has an absolute advantage and takes the leading position in this field. The quantity and quality of Chinese articles are inconsistent. In the identification research cluster, “mortality” and “risk” are determined to be the hotspot, while “emergency medical services”, “out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA)” and “emergency medical services” are the new trend in machine learning in emergency medicine.

To update the profile of author-reported funding of reports of original research published since 1994 in the four U.S. peer-reviewed general emergency medicine (EM) journals. For the primary analysis, articles published in Academic Emergency Medicine, American Journal of Emergency Medicine, Annals of Emergency Medicine, and Journal of Emergency Medicine between 1994 and 2003 were reviewed by two emergency physicians trained in abstracting from the literature. Original research was identified; case reports, case series, abstracts, and meta-analysis were excluded. Articles were classified by author report of extramural funding as government (public), private nonprofit (foundation), for profit (industry), or multiple. Data are reported as percent per year per journal. A secondary analysis of MEDLINE was performed to identify publishing trends by EM investigators outside of these four journals over the same period. The primary analysis identified 5,728 articles; 3,278 (57%) were considered original research, with 32% of these reporting extramural funding. In 1994, there were 292 articles with 28% funded (28% public, 43% foundation, 17% industry, and 12% multiple). By 2003, there were 358 articles with 36% funded (42% public, 30% foundation, 18% industry, and 10% multiple). There was a trend toward increased extramural funding in all four journals (p = 0.007), with an estimated growth of 3.6% (95% confidence interval = 1.0% to 6.3%) per year over the past decade. The primary review identified 48% of all articles published by EM investigators. Author-reported extramural funding rates for original research have increased in the EM literature over the past decade. Foundations have funded the largest number of studies, with public (government) sources increasing in 2003.