ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2024
Optimizing external advisory committee meetings of Clinical and Translational Science Awards through focused pre-review.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
External advisory committees (EACs) are critical peer-review meetings that drive improvement at Clinical and Translational Science Award Program Hubs. Despite their ubiquity, evaluations of EAC optimization and effective implementation remain scarce. We present a two-tiered approach to optimizing EAC meetings through (1) in-depth, topically focused "pre-review" meetings comprised of external topic experts and at least one standing "full-board" EAC member, followed by (2) a traditional "full-board" EAC meeting. This approach allowed pre-review discussion of program-focused topics and specific recommendations, later delivered to the full-board for review and direction. To evaluate this approach, we interviewed 18 people who planned, administered, or attended pre-review and/or full-board meetings, including internal Hub staff, external topic experts, and standing EAC members. Thematic analysis was used to explore planning, implementation, and value of our two-tiered approach
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.