The absence of evidence to assess treatment efficacy partially underpins the unsustainable expenditure of the US healthcare system; a challenge exacerbated by a limited understanding of the factors influencing the translation of clinical research into practice. Leveraging a dataset of >10,000 UpToDate articles, sampled every 3 months between 2011-2020, we trace the path of research (37,050 newly added articles from 887 journals) from initial publication to the point-of-care, compared to the 2.4 million uncited studies published during the same time window across 18 medical specialties. Our analysis reveals substantial variation in how specialties prioritize/adopt research, with regards to fraction of literature cited (0.4%-2.4%) and quality-of-evidence incorporated. In 9 of 18 specialties, less than 1 in 10 clinical trials are ever cited. Further, case reports represent one of the most cited article types in 12 of 18 specialties, comprising nearly a third of newly-added references for some specialties (e.g., dermatology). Anesthesiology, cardiology, critical care, geriatrics, internal medicine, and oncology tended to favor higher-quality evidence. By modelling citations as a function of NIH department-specific funding, we estimate the cost of bringing one new clinical citation to the point-of-care as ranging from thousands to tens of thousands of dollars depending on specialty. The success of a subset of specialties in incorporating a larger proportion of published research, as well as high(er) quality of evidence, demonstrates the existence of translational strategies that should be applied more broadly. In addition to providing a baseline for monitoring the efficiency of research investments, we also describe new 'impact' indices to assess the efficacy of reforms to the clinical scientific enterprise.