ArticleIranian journal of public health2021
Peer Review Research Evaluation in Iran: Strengths, Weaknesses and Suggestions.
Article in Iranian journal of public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Designing an Impact-Oriented Model of Research and Technology Evaluation: An Experience of I.R.Iran.International journal of preventive medicine · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeer based evaluation is a qualitative assessment done in different fields and levels. The aim of this study was to express the results of peer review evaluation in selected Iranian clinical research centers.
methodsFour main domains consist of Leadership and governance, Structure, Knowledge products and Impact in thirty Iranian clinical research centers were evaluated based on peer review in 2019. Strengths and weak points with peer's suggestions were extracted based on qualitative analysis.
resultsGovernance and impact domains have been more weak points than others. Equipment, facilities, physical space and human resource have been desirable in many research centers, and also there were some good developments in research publication. The most important suggestion was pay more attention to technology in planning, infra-structure and impact levels.
conclusionReview missions of clinical research centers with more emphasis on health impact is necessary to clinical improvement.
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.