Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38745877›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2024

A landscape assessment of CTSA evaluators and their work in the CTSA consortium, 2021 survey findings.

Verónica Hoyo, Eric Nehl, Ann Dozier, Jillian Harvey, Cathleen Kane, Anna Perry, Elias Samuels, Susanne Schmidt, Joe Hunt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Methodological progress note: Logic models.Journal of hospital medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Meta-evaluative practices of Clinical and Translational Research evaluators.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025
    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.

Verónica HoyoNorthwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (NUCATS), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4660-5828
Eric NehlGeorgia CTSA, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Ann DozierUniversity of Rochester Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Rochester, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8296-1910
Jillian HarveyMUSC South Carolina Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Charleston, SC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6814-8226
Cathleen KaneNYU Langone Health Clinical and Translational Science Institute, New York, NY, USA.
Anna PerryWake Forest Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Elias SamuelsMichigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6725-3382
Susanne SchmidtUT Health San Antonio, Institute for Integration of Medicine and Science, San Antonio, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7684-1648
Joe HuntIndiana Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

Funding

Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR)UM1TR004404 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Julie C Lumeng · 2023 to 2026
$39.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004404
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article presents a landscape assessment of the findings from the 2021 Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Evaluators Survey. This survey was the most recent iteration of a well established, national, peer-led systematic snapshot of the CTSA evaluators, their skillsets, listed evaluation resources, preferred methods, and identified best practices. Three questions guided our study: who are the CTSA evaluators, what competencies do they share and how is their work used within hubs. We describe our survey process (logistics of development, deployment, and differences in historical context with prior instruments); and present its main findings. We provide specific recommendations for evaluation practice in two main categories (National vs Group-level) including, among others, the need for a national, strategic plan for evaluation as well as enhanced mentoring and training of the next generation of evaluators. Although based on the challenges and opportunities currently within the CTSA Consortium, takeaways from this study constitute important lessons with potential for application in other large evaluation consortia. To our knowledge, this is the first time 2021 survey findings are disseminated widely, to increase transparency of the CTSA evaluators' work and to motivate conversations within hub and beyond, as to how best to leverage existent evaluative capacity.

Indexed as

Continuous improvementCTSAevaluationNCATSsurveytranslational science

Identifiers

PMID38745877
PMCPMC11091919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-SA
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.