ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2026
Powering evaluation and continuous improvement in translational science: Insights from the 2025 ACTS Evaluation SIG meeting.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2026. 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
The 2025 Evaluation Special Interest Group (SIG) meeting at the Association for Clinical and Translational Science conference brought together clinical and translational science (CTS) professionals to address evolving challenges in translational science evaluation. The meeting presentations and discussions addressed concept mapping for commonly used metrics, continuous quality improvement (CQI) practices, translational science impact evaluation, and evaluator toolkit development. Key themes and lessons learned included the tension between institution-specific and network-wide evaluation goals, the need for standardized yet flexible evaluation frameworks, and persistent barriers including limited staffing capacity and data ownership challenges. Facilitators identified included diverse CQI approaches, the evolving frameworks, and collaborative evaluation practices. Convened during a time of increasing research funding uncertainty and accountability, the meeting underscored the urgency of strengthening evaluation capacity to sustain the impact of CTS, highlighting both the enduring value of heterogeneous evaluation approaches and the critical need for coordinated CTS evaluation strategies to demonstrate impact and secure continued funding support.
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.