ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
A protocol for tracking scholarly output to evaluate the impact of the RADx-UP program on community-engaged COVID-19 research.
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Portfolio-level publication tracking collects research output from related programs. Tracking publications is imperative to evaluate the scholarly impact of a program, synthesize program findings, and document impact to funders. A valid tracking protocol increases data quality for accurate impact assessment, but there is little literature on publication tracking methods appropriate for assessing impact across multiple programs. Methods: We tracked, managed, and evaluated publications from the National Institutes of Health-funded Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics - Underserved Populations, which included over 137 projects and a Coordination and Data Collection Center. During the four-year project, we deployed a quarterly self-report survey to project leads and conducted twice-monthly searches for grant-related publications. Search strategies comprised a simple search of project grant numbers and an enhanced search. We evaluated the sensitivity and positive predictive value of search strategies compared to the surveys. Results: Compared to the survey, the simple search was 21.5% to 27.4% sensitive with a positive predictive value between 81.1% and 95.8%. The enhanced search was 62.6% to 68.0% sensitive with a positive predictive value between 76.2% and 96.9%. Response rates declined over time from a maximum of 61.3% to a minimum of 32.8%. Conclusions: The enhanced search increased specificity in identifying publications, but the survey was necessary to refine strategies and identify missed products. However, the enhanced search may have relieved participant burden in entering citations. These findings may be valuable for coordinating centers, academic departments, working groups, and other academic entities that must quantify the impact of their publications.
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.