ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2017
Using publication data to evaluate a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) career development program: Early outcomes from KL2 scholars.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Academic influencers: Clinical and Translational Science scholars and trainees at the intersection of influential scholarship and public attention.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
- Scholarly Productivity Evaluation of KL2 Scholars Using Bibliometrics and Federal Follow-on Funding: Cross-Institution Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 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
- Using bibliometrics to evaluate translational science training: evidence for early career success of KL2 scholars.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020Article
- Bibliometrics approach to evaluating the research impact of CTSAs: A pilot study.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study uses KL2 scholars' publications to evaluate the types of research the KL2 program supports and to assess the initial productivity and impact of its scholars.
methodsWe illustrate the feasibility of 3 different approaches to bibliometrics, one viable method for determining the types of research a program or hub supports, and demonstrate how these data can be further combined with internal data records.
resultsGender differences were observed in the types of research scholars undertake. Overall KL2 scholars are performing well, with their publications being cited more than the norm for National Institutes of Health publications. Favorable results were also observed in scholars' continued engagement in research.
conclusionThis study illustrates that linking bibliometric data and data categorizing publications along the translational spectrum with a Clinical and Translational Science Award hub's internal data records is feasible and offers a number of innovative possibilities for the evaluation of a Clinical and Translational Science Award hub's programs and investigators.
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.