目的:分析国家自然科学基金委员会(National Natural Science Foundation of China, NSFC)资助的康复医学项目及相关文章成果，并与美国国立卫生研究院(National Institutes of Health, NIH)对比，为康复医学未来的资助方向提供依据。方法:检索科学基金共享服务网及NIH项目报告网站，收集NSFC和NIH资助项目及其产出的文献信息，并进行统计学分析。结果:2009年至2018年NSFC共资助421个康复医学领域项目，NIH共资助312个项目；两国的预算逐年增加，2018年的NSFC预算(389万美元)是2009年(46万美元)的8.46倍，而2018年NIH的资助预算(3608万美元)是2009年(1662万美元)的2.17倍；中美资助项目产生的文献数量分别为1111篇和2571篇；两国文献的影响因子主要分布在0~3分，而影响因子≥6分的期刊中，美国发表文献数量(297篇)远多于中国(18篇)；中美两国项目预算经费投入增长每百万美元，产出SCI文章的数量增长2.25倍和0.05倍。结论:中美两国近十年来分别在NSFC和NIH资助下的康复医学研究投入及产出不断提高，两国康复医学研究仍存在一定差距。“,”Objective:To analyze and compare rehabilitation research funded by China′s National Natural Science Foundation (NSFC) with that funded by America′s National Institutes of Health (NIH) so as to provide references for future funding.Methods:Articles reporting rehabilitation research funded by the NSFC and the NIH were retrieved from the NSFC′s Science Output Service website and the NIH′s Project Report website and analyzed.Results:From 2009 to 2018 the NSFC funded 421 rehabilitation studies which resulted in a published report while the NIH funded 312. In 2018, the NSFC budget (US$3.89 million) was 8.46 times that of 2009 (US$460, 000), while the NIH′s grant budget (US$36.08 million) was 2.17 times that of 2009 (US$16.62 million). The number of published papers resulting from the Chinese and American studies was 1111 and 2571 respectively. Their impact factors mainly ranged between 0 and 3 points. Among the journals with an impact factor of 6 or more, published papers from the United States (297) were much more numerous than those from China (18). The number of SCI papers per million US dollars increased by 2.25 times in China and 0.05 times in the US.Conclusions:Both China and the United States have been investing more in rehabilitation medicine research, and that has resulted in more published papers. There is still a gap in funding and output between the two countries.