ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Measuring the aggregated impact of research: Establishing criteria for coding Translational Science Benefits Model data.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring what matters: Modern evaluation practices in clinical and translational science.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Taking the Translational Science Benefits Model from concept to operationalization: opportunities and challenges in defining impact using the Translational Science Benefits Model.Frontiers in public health · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: A promising approach to assessing research impact draws on the Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM), an evaluation model that tracks the applied benefits of research in four domains: Clinical and Medical; Community and Public Health; Economic; and Policy and Legislative. However, standardized methods to verify TSBM benefit data, to aid in aggregating impact data within quantitative summaries, do not currently exist. Methods: A panel of 11 topic experts participated in a modified Delphi process for establishing content and face validity of a set of criteria for verifying qualitative TSBM data. Two survey rounds were completed by panelists, with a moderated discussion in between rounds to discuss criteria not reaching consensus. Criteria with panel consensus at or above 70% in the survey rounds were confirmed as validated. Results: Criteria fell into 9 categories: Content Relevant, Project Related, Who, Reach, What, How, Novel, Documented Evidence, and When. The Delphi process yielded 197 total criteria across the 30 benefits characterized by the TSBM (range = 5-8 criteria per benefit). Discussion: The results of this Delphi process lay the foundation for developing a TSBM coding tool for evaluating and quantifying TSBM data. Standardizing this process will enable data aggregation, group analysis, and the comparison of research impact across contexts.
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.