 |
|
NIH Peer Review of Grant Applications for Clinical Research
Theodore A. Kotchen, MD;
Teresa Lindquist, MS;
Karl Malik, PhD;
Ellie Ehrenfeld, PhD
JAMA. 2004;291:836-843.
Context Support of research to facilitate translation of scientific discoveries to the prevention and treatment of human disease is a high priority for the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). Nevertheless, a perception exists among clinical investigators that the NIH peer review process may discriminate against clinical research.
Objective To describe recent trends and outcomes of peer review of grant applications to NIH requesting support for clinical research.
Design and Setting Peer review outcomes of grant applications submitted to NIH by MDs were compared with those of non-MDs, and outcomes of applications involving inclusion of human subjects were compared with those not involving human subjects. Analyses were carried out using an inclusive definition of clinical research and after stratifying clinical research into specific categories.
Main Outcome Measures Median priority scores and funding rates.
Results Between 1997 and 2002, on average, 25.2% of total grant applications (ranging from 27 607 to 34 422 per year) were submitted by MDs, and 27.5% of awards (ranging from 8495 to 10 769 awards per year) were made to MDs. Median priority scores (239.0 vs 250.0) and funding rates (31.4% vs 29.1%) reviewed in 2 grant cycles in 2002 were more favorable for MDs than for non-MDs (P<.001). However, median priority scores (254.0 vs 244.0) and funding rates (23.9% vs 28.1%) were less favorable (P<.001) for R01 applications for clinical research (n = 7227 applications) than for nonclinical research (n = 10 209). This trend was most convincingly observed for clinical research categorized as mechanisms of disease (P = .006) or clinical trials and interventions (P = .001). Similar trends were observed for grant mechanisms other than R01. Concerns about safety and privacy of human subjects may have contributed to the less favorable outcomes of clinical research applications.
Conclusion Although physicians compete favorably in the peer review process, review outcomes are modestly less favorable for grant applications for clinical research than for laboratory research.
Author Affiliations: Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
The Clinical Researcher—An "Emerging" Species
Ralph Snyderman
JAMA. 2004;291(7):882-883.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Procedural Challenges in International Collaborative Research
Loo
Acad. Psychiatry 2009;33:229-233.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
New Physician-Investigators Receiving National Institutes of Health Research Project Grants: A Historical Perspective on the "Endangered Species"
Dickler et al.
JAMA 2007;297:2496-2501.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Strategies for Successful Patient Oriented Research: Why Did I (not) Get Funded?
Agarwal et al.
CJASN 2006;1:340-343.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Academic and Career Development of Pulmonary and Critical Care Physician-Scientists
Weinert et al.
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2006;173:23-31.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
An Evidence-Based Guide to Writing Grant Proposals for Clinical Research
Inouye and Fiellin
ANN INTERN MED 2005;142:274-282.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A time of accelerated change in academic cardiovascular medicine: Implications for academic divisions of cardiology and their training programs
Califf et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:1957-1965.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Clinical Researcher--An "Emerging" Species
Snyderman
JAMA 2004;291:882-883.
FULL TEXT
|
