This study assessed whether the COVID-19 pandemic altered research priorities for neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) relative to other infectious diseases. The authors evaluated research intensity for a set of 67 infectious diseases, of which 18 were classified as neglected tropical diseases, across the period 2016–2023. The investigation aimed to quantify relative research attention while accounting for disease burden.
The investigators developed and applied a burden-adjusted research intensity (BARI) index that combined measures of disease burden and scholarly publication output to quantify relative research intensity for each disease. The analysis compared BARI values before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and examined differences between NTDs and non-NTDs. Details on the exact computational steps, the burden measures used, and publication data sources were reported in the full article; the abstract states only that BARI was based on disease burden and scholarly publications.
Across the evaluated diseases, the study identified significantly high research intensity for COVID-19, HIV, influenza, and Zika. In contrast, paratyphoid fever showed a significantly low BARI score, indicating comparatively limited research attention relative to its burden.
When comparing median BARI indices for the pandemic period (2020–2023), the authors found no significant difference between NTDs and non-NTDs. This result indicates that, as a formal disease category, NTDs were not disproportionately deprioritised in terms of research intensity during the COVID-19 pandemic according to the BARI metric.
Despite the group-level finding, several individual diseases experienced significant declines in relative research intensity when comparing pre-pandemic and post-pandemic periods. Among NTDs, the BARI index for cysticercosis, dengue, and schistosomiasis declined significantly. These reductions indicate that specific NTDs lost relative research attention following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The analysis also identified decreases in BARI among non-NTD conditions: the BARI of 12 non-NTD infectious diseases decreased across the pandemic comparison. Importantly, there was no significant difference in the proportion of diseases for which BARI decreased between NTDs and non-NTDs, suggesting the pandemic’s effect on relative research attention was not confined to or concentrated within the NTD category.
The authors report that disease characteristics and the geographic locations of research activity were modestly associated with research intensity. However, subgroup analyses did not show a clear or consistent impact of the COVID-19 pandemic within these subgroups. The abstract does not provide granular subgroup results or the specific characteristics that were associated; those details are presented in the full text.
The study concludes there is no evidence that NTDs, as a formal category, were broadly deprioritised during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, the persistent low or declining BARI for several individual diseases—across both NTDs and non-NTDs—highlights areas of continued concern. The authors argue that research on non-pandemic infectious diseases, including NTDs, should be considered integral to pandemic preparedness and response rather than competing with it. They emphasize the need for sustained, wide-reaching research investments to support global equity in infectious disease research and development.
This work was published in Journal of Global Health in 2026. The PubMed identifier is PMID 42565477 and DOI 10.7189/jogh.16.04255. Authors listed include Ryo Komorizono, Raita Tamaki, Naoko Fujita, Masakaze Hamada, Kana Suzuki, Satoshi Kaneko, and Yuki Furuse. The authors completed the ICMJE disclosure form and reported no relevant conflicts of interest in the abstract.