ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2024
Moving from
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating confidence in translational science principles to guide workforce development.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Navigating the road ahead: using concept mapping to assess Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program goals.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Building on the Translational Science Benefits Model to include team science: a practical and theory-based approach to continuous quality improvement and impact evaluation for Clinical and Translational Science Award programs.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Environment scan of generative AI infrastructure for clinical and translational science.npj health systems · 2025Article
- Evaluation means making CQI collaborative (E = MCJournal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Environment Scan of Generative AI Infrastructure for Clinical and Translational Science.ArXiv · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Structured processes to improve the quality and impact of clinical and translational research are a required element of the Clinical and Translational Sciences Awards (CTSA) program and are central to awardees' strategic management efforts. Quality improvement is often assumed to be an ordinary consequence of evaluation programs, in which standardized metrics are tabulated and reported externally. Yet evaluation programs may not actually be very effective at driving quality improvement: required metrics may lack direct relevance; they lack incentive to improve on areas of relative strength; and the validity of inter-site comparability may be limited. In this article, we describe how we convened leaders at our CTSA hub in an iterative planning process to improve the quality of our CTSA program by intentionally focusing on how data collection activities can primarily advance continuous quality improvement (CQI) rather than strictly serve as evaluative tools. We describe our CQI process, which consists of three key components: (1) Logic models outlining goals and associated mechanisms; (2) relevant metrics to evaluate performance improvement opportunities; and (3) an interconnected and collaborative CQI framework that defines actions and timelines to enhance performance.
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.