ArticleEvaluation & the health professions2013
Estimating return on investment in translational research: methods and protocols.
Article in Evaluation & the health professions, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Approaches and tools to measure individual-level research experience, activities, and outcomes: A narrative review.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Review
- The development, validity, and reliability of the Researcher Investment Tool.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Evaluating the impact of a CTSA program from 2008 to 2021 through bibliometrics, social network analysis, and altmetrics.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- A Qualitative Scoping Review of Early-Terminated Clinical Trials Sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program From 2010 to 2020.Epidemiologic reviews · 2022Article
- Integrated, automated maintenance, expansion and differentiation of 2D and 3D patient-derived cellular models for high throughput drug screening.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Scope, Influence, and Interdisciplinary Collaboration: The Publication Portfolio of the NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program From 2006 Through 2017.Evaluation & the health professions · 2020Article
- Intra-hospital organ and tissue donation coordination project: cost-effectiveness and social benefits.Revista de saude publica · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Assessing the value of clinical and translational research funding on accelerating the translation of scientific knowledge is a fundamental issue faced by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its Clinical and Translational Awards (CTSAs). To address this issue, the authors propose a model for measuring the return on investment (ROI) of one key CTSA program, the clinical research unit (CRU). By estimating the economic and social inputs and outputs of this program, this model produces multiple levels of ROI: investigator, program, and institutional estimates. A methodology, or evaluation protocol, is proposed to assess the value of this CTSA function, with specific objectives, methods, descriptions of the data to be collected, and how data are to be filtered, analyzed, and evaluated. This article provides an approach CTSAs could use to assess the economic and social returns on NIH and institutional investments in these critical activities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.