ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Bridging barriers, integrating insights: The Gotham approach to CTSA collaborative evaluation.
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.
- Contextualizing Evaluation in Research Consortia: A Reflective Case Study from the Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMIs) Program.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Collaboration across the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium is essential for advancing translational science, yet institutional silos often hinder data-sharing and benchmarking efforts. This study examines the viability of a voluntary, multi-hub analysis of the CTSA education common metric on trainee and scholar engagement across five New York City-based sites or "hubs." Using a structured framework for collaboration and field-tested operational guidelines, a team of evaluators dubbed "The Gotham Group" pooled de-identified common education data to assess post-training research engagement and demographic representation. Their primary objective was to establish a sustainable model for independent data-sharing without national mandates or technical support. A secondary goal was to reassess the metric's usefulness as an impact benchmark. Results showed that NYC education engagement percentages remained stable despite institutional differences, suggesting the metric's viability for regional comparison. More importantly, the collaboration itself proved as valuable as its outcomes, fostering professional relationships, facilitating knowledge exchange, and strengthening evaluation capacity within and across the hubs. This study highlights the potential of voluntary data-sharing partnerships to overcome data silos and to create valuable networks driving continuous improvement in translational science.
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.