Outcomes of national institutes of health peer review of clinical grant applications
Outcomes of national institutes of health peer review of clinical grant applications
复制标题
DOI：
10.2310/6650.2005.05026
复制
发表时间：
2006-01-01
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Stanfield, B
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kotchen, TA;Lindquist, T;Stanfield, B
目的：我们之前报道过，美国国立卫生研究院 (NIH) 2002 年的同行评审结果对临床研究资助申请的支持程度略低于对实验室研究的资助申请。本分析旨在确定与审查过程相关的因素是否可能导致这种差异。方法：评估以下每个因素对临床和非临床 R01 拨款申请的中位优先级分数和资助率的影响：(1) 分配给研究部门审查的临床申请的百分比，(2) 要求的直接成本，以及 (3) 审查者的临床研究经验。结果：证实了我们之前的观察，在 1994 年和 2004 年，中位优先级分数和R01 申请的资助率对临床研究不太有利。 1994 年，临床应用在审查相对较低百分比的临床应用的研究部分中表现不佳。 2004 年的情况并非如此。尽管临床 R01 申请所要求的直接成本高于非临床 R01 申请，但每个类别中的中位优先级分数实际上对要求更多资金的申请更有利。对于有或没有进行临床研究经验的审稿人来说，优先级分数的分配没有不同。结论：这些数据不支持临床应用不太有利的审评结果与这些审评因素相关的假设。我们建议，临床研究的同行评审结果将受益于最近对 NIH 评审标准的细化，强调临床研究的独特贡献，以及临床研究人员培训机会的增加。
Purpose: We previously reported that National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review outcomes in 2002 were slightly but significantly less favorable for grant applications for clinical research than for laboratory research. The present analysis was undertaken to determine if factors related to the review process might contribute to this difference.Methods: The impact of each of the following factors on median priority scores and funding rates for clinical and nonclinical R01 grant applications was evaluated: (1) the percentage of clinical applications assigned for review to a study section, (2) the requested direct costs, and (3) the clinical research experience of the reviewers.Results: Confirming our previous observation, in both 1994 and 2004, median priority scores and funding rates for R01 applications were less favorable for clinical research. In 1994, clinical applications did not fare as well in study sections reviewing relatively low percentages of clinical applications. This was not the case in 2004. Although requested direct costs were greater for clinical than for nonclinical R01 applications, median priority scores within each category were actually more favorable for applications requesting greater funding. Assignment of priority scores was not different for reviewers with or without experience conducting clinical research.Conclusion: These data do not support the hypothesis that the less favorable review outcomes for clinical applications are related to these review factors. We suggest that peer review outcomes for clinical research will benefit from the recent refinement of NIH review criteria, emphasizing the unique contributions of clinical investigation, and from increased training opportunities for clinical investigators.