ReviewSurgery2023
Ancillary documents for NIH grant applications: The pages beyond the science.
Review in Surgery, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- How may grant applications change in future because of artificial intelligence? An international and historical perspective.Internal medicine journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Preparing a grant proposal is no small feat, especially for research (R-series) grants from the National Institutes of Health. The National Institutes of Health is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, and as such, procuring a research grant from the National Institutes of Health is one of the ultimate benchmarks of success for a surgeon-scientist. Most investigators are familiar with the page limits for most R-series grants (12 pages for an R01 and 6 pages for an R21), with the addition of a single page allotted for the specific aims. Interestingly, despite the usual focus on the aforementioned research section, the rest of the application can routinely consist of an additional 100 to 150 pages, which means that pages allotted for the specific aims and research strategy represent only 10% of the complete application package. For busy surgeons, it is this abundance of ancillary documentation that can make preparing a research grant particularly onerous. Fortunately, for some, support exists within the department to help prepare much of this documentation by drawing from previous sources, templates, and boilerplate language that has been developed. Although these resources can significantly reduce the burden on individual investigators, there is a danger of leaning on generalized templates that can dilute the message of the overall grant proposal and introduce extraneous or incorrect information that can ultimately impact the cohesiveness and ultimately the competitiveness of the grant. The focus of this article is to educate surgeon-scientists regarding the purpose and importance of the ancillary information required for National Institutes of Health research grants and how to make the most of institutional resources while tailoring these materials to create a cohesive, competitive grant application.
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.