Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33948283›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2020

Evaluating a CTSA-funded pilot grant program.

Kalene Morozumi, Tanha Patel, Paul Kerr, Mary Beth Cassely, Timothy Carey, John Buse, Andrea Carnegie, Tom Egan, Gaurav Dave

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

9 authors.

Kalene MorozumiNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Tanha PatelNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4432-1469
Paul KerrNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Mary Beth CasselyNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Timothy CareyNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
John BuseNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Andrea CarnegieNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Tom EganNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Gaurav DaveNorth Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0825-1595

Funding

Re-Entry Supplement: Investigation of Oral Microbial Enzymes for the Detection and Treatment of Periodontal DiseaseUL1TR002489 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSE, JOHN BERNARD, SHAHEEN, NICHOLAS J · 2018 to 2022
$48.6M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002489
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPilot programs are integral to catalyzing and accelerating research at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs. However, little has been published about the structure and operationalization of pilot programs or how they impact the translational research enterprise at CTSAs. The North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS), the CTSA hub at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) conducted an evaluation case study to describe the pilot program structure, assess process outcomes, and provide a framework for other institutions to utilize for the evaluation of their respective pilot programs.

methodsWe describe the operationalization of our pilot program, the evaluation framework utilized to evaluate the program, and how we analyzed available data to understand how our pilot funding opportunities were utilized by investigators. We calculated application volumes and funding rates by investigator position title and pilot application type. We also reviewed feedback provided by pilot Principal Investigators (PIs) to understand how many pilot projects were completed, NC TraCS service utilization, and barriers to research. Limited data on publications and subsequent funding was also reviewed.

resultsBetween 2009 and 2019 the NC TraCS Pilot Program received 2343 applications and funded 933 projects, ranging from $2000 to $100,000 in amount, with an overall funding rate of 39.8%. Utilization of NC TraCS services had positive impacts on both resubmission funding and project completion rates.

conclusionThis process evaluation indicates that the program is being operationalized in a way that successfully fulfills the program mission while meeting the needs of a diverse group of researchers.

Indexed as

CTSAevaluationpilot fundingpilot programtranslational research

Identifiers

PMID33948283
PMCPMC8057500

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.