Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31827906›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2019

The CTSA External Reviewer Exchange Consortium (CEREC): Engagement and efficacy.

Margaret Schneider, April Bagaporo, Jennifer A Croker, Adam Davidson, Pam Dillon, Aileen Dinkjian, Madeline Gibson, Nia Indelicato, Amy J Jenkins, Tanya Mathew and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Margaret SchneiderInstitute for Clinical and Translational Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
April BagaporoInstitute for Clinical and Translational Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Jennifer A CrokerCenter for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Adam DavidsonInstitute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Pam DillonC. Kenneth and Dianne Wright Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Aileen DinkjianSouthern California Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Madeline GibsonCenter for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Nia IndelicatoTranslational Research Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Amy J JenkinsTranslational Research Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Tanya MathewCenter for Clinical and Translational Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Renee McCoyClinical Translational Science Institute of Southeast Wisconsin, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Hardeep RanuHarvard Catalyst, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
Kai ZhengInstitute for Clinical and Translational Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.

Funding

Transform Dissemination and Implementation Science in CTSA ProgramsUL1TR002319 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI John K. Amory · 2017 to 2026
$100.0M
The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR002541 · NCATS · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI NADLER, LEE MARSHALL · 2018 to 2022
$93.0M
Southern California Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR001855 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Thomas A Buchanan, Michele D. Kipke · 2016 to 2026
$81.3M
Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR001436 · NCATS · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · PI FREED, JULIE K · 2015 to 2025
$47.5M
University of California Health Participation in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C)UL1TR001414 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI COOPER, DAN M, VILAIN, ERIC J. · 2015 to 2023
$35.1M
UAB Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS)UL1TR001417 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI KIMBERLY, ROBERT P. · 2015 to 2018
$31.4M
The OSU Center for Clinical and Translational Science: Advancing Today's Discoveries to Improve HealthUL1TR002733 · NCATS · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI RINGEL, MATTHEW D · 2018 to 2022
$28.9M
Research Supplement to Promote Diversity in Health Related ResearchUL1TR002649 · NCATS · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI MOELLER, FREDERICK GERARD · 2018 to 2022
$19.1M
Expanding Translational Research in ArkansasU54TR001629 · NCATS · UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOR MED SCIS · PI JAMES, LAURA P · 2017 to 2017
$3.5M
NCATS NIH HHS U54 TR001629NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001414NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001417NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001436NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001855NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002319NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002541NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002649NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002733
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMany institutions evaluate applications for local seed funding by recruiting peer reviewers from their own institutional community. Smaller institutions, however, often face difficulty locating qualified local reviewers who are not in conflict with the proposal. As a larger pool of reviewers may be accessed through a cross-institutional collaborative process, nine Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs formed a consortium in 2016 to facilitate reviewer exchanges. Data were collected to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of the consortium.

methodsThe CTSA External Reviewer Exchange Consortium (CEREC) has been supported by a custom-built web-based application that facilitates the process and tracks the efficiency and productivity of the exchange.

resultsAll nine of the original CEREC members remain actively engaged in the exchange. Between January 2017 and May 2019, CEREC supported the review process for 23 individual calls for proposals. Out of the 412 reviews requested, 368 were received, for a fulfillment ratio of 89.3%. The yield on reviewer invitations has remained consistently high, with approximately one-third of invitations being accepted, and of the reviewers who agreed to provide a review, 88.3% submitted a complete review. Surveys of reviewers and pilot program administrators indicate high satisfaction with the process.

conclusionsThese data indicate that a reviewer exchange consortium is feasible, adds value to participating partners, and is sustainable over time.

Indexed as

collaborationconflict of interestCTSAPeer reviewpilot study

Identifiers

PMID31827906
PMCPMC6885993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.