ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2018
Exploring the potential role of community engagement in evaluating clinical and translational science grant proposals.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- MyGeneRisk Colon: A Web-Based Tool for Personalized Colorectal Cancer Risk Prediction Based on Genetics and Lifestyle.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Genomic landscape of cancer in racially and ethnically diverse populations.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2025Review
- Community Members as Reviewers of Medical Journal Manuscripts: a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- Building a pipeline of community-engaged researchers: How interdisciplinary translational research training programs can collaborate with their Community Research Advisory Councils.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
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
introductionThis study explored the effects of integrating community members into the evaluation of clinical and translational science grants.
methodsThe University of California, Irvine Institute for Clinical and Translational Sciences (ICTS) engaged 21 community reviewers alongside scientific reviewers in a 2-stage process of evaluating research proposals. In Stage 1 reviewers scored proposals, and during Stage 2 two study sections convened: one a mix of community reviewers and scientific reviewers, and one only engaging scientific reviewers. In total, 4 studies were discussed by both study sections.
resultsComparisons of reviews revealed little difference between ratings of community reviewers and those of scientific reviewers, and that community reviewers largely refrained from critiquing scientific or technical aspects of proposals.
conclusionsThe findings suggest that involving community reviewers early in the grant cycle, and exposing them to the entirety of the review process, can bolster community engagement without compromising the rigor of grant evaluations.
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.