ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2024
Distinguishing between translational science and translational research in CTSA pilot studies: A collaborative project across 12 CTSA hubs.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Road from Science to Health: The Importance of Designing For, Measuring, and Communicating Impact in Public Health.Annual review of public health · 2026Review
- Steps toward developing an algorithm to facilitate recognition of translational science.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Evaluating confidence in translational science principles to guide workforce development.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- The translational science promotion and research capacity (T-SPARC) framework: Developing institutional capacity for translational science.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Application of a Conceptual Model for Translational Science Impact.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Editorial: Impact evaluation using the translational science benefits model framework in the national center for advancing translational science clinical and translational science award program.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Development of TRACER: A Translational Research Accomplishments Cataloguer for Clinical and Translational Science Award hub activity tracking, evaluation, and decision-making.Journal of clinical and translational science · 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: The institutions (i.e., hubs) making up the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded network of Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) share a mission to turn observations into interventions to improve public health. Recently, the focus of the CTSAs has turned increasingly from translational research (TR) to translational science (TS). The current NIH Funding Opportunity Announcement (PAR-21-293) for CTSAs stipulates that pilot studies funded through the CTSAs must be "focused on understanding a scientific or operational principle underlying a step of the translational process with the goal of developing generalizable solutions to accelerate translational research." This new directive places Pilot Program administrators in the position of arbiters with the task of distinguishing between TR and TS projects. The purpose of this study was to explore the utility of a set of TS principles set forth by NCATS for distinguishing between TR and TS. Methods: Twelve CTSA hubs collaborated to generate a list of Translational Science Principles questions. Twenty-nine Pilot Program administrators used these questions to evaluate 26 CTSA-funded pilot studies. Results: Factor analysis yielded three factors: Generalizability/Efficiency, Disruptive Innovation, and Team Science. The Generalizability/Efficiency factor explained the largest amount of variance in the questions and was significantly able to distinguish between projects that were verified as TS or TR ( Conclusions: The seven questions in this factor may be useful for informing deliberations regarding whether a study addresses a question that aligns with NCATS' vision of TS.
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.