ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Using the Researcher Investment Tool to inform a clinical and translational research initiative.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Measuring what matters: Modern evaluation practices in clinical and translational science.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Numerous efforts are focused on building the clinical and translational research (CTR) workforce. Approaches to evaluate CTR initiatives are varied, and efforts often rely on research project-level outcomes. This article applies an evaluation tool to capture individual-level data. Objective: The study used a novel Researcher Investment Tool (RIT) to measure researchers' experience as well as perceptions of institutional support, including an analysis based on researcher characteristics. The study also evaluated the RIT based on common measures, including a bibliometric indicator, investigator status, and percent time dedicated to research. Methods: The RIT was administered to researchers who received funding or targeted research support from a CTR initiative. Mean scores were assessed by RIT section, domains/sub-domains, and for each item. Mean scores per section were compared across researcher characteristics using t-tests, and associations between common measures and average domain scores were tested using linear regression. Results: Thirty researchers completed all RIT items. RIT domain scores ranged from a high mean of 4.0 for the research skills domain to a low mean of 2.6 for researcher productivity and community engagement domains. Analysis of indicators of commonly used measures across domains suggest that researchers with a higher bibliometric score had more advanced research skills, service to profession, research productivity, and research collaboration ( Conclusions: As an evaluation tool, the RIT captures individual-level data that may help to determine key areas of strength and opportunities for growth of a CTR program.
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.