Why Are Peer Review Outcomes Less Favorable for Clinical Science than for Basic Science Grant Applications?

American Journal of Medicine

Volumn 121, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 637-641

  Martin, Michael R ^a   Lindquist, Teresa ^a   Kotchen, Theodore A ^b  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

^b MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL STUDY; FUNDING; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SERVICE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL RECORD; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCORING SYSTEM;

EID: 45749151413     PISSN: 00029343     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.03.031     Document Type: Note

References (18)

1. Wyngaarden J.B. The clinical investigator as an endangered species. N Engl J Med 301 23 (1979) 1254-1259
2. Goldstein J.L., and Brown M.S. The clinical investigator: bewitched, bothered, and bewildered-but still beloved. J Clin Invest 99 12 (1997) 2803-2812
3. Campbell E.G., Weissman J.S., Moy E., and Blumenthal D. Status of clinical research in academic health centers: views from the research leadership. JAMA 286 7 (2001) 800-806
4. Nathan D.G. Educational debt relief for clinical investigators-a vote of confidence. N Engl J Med 346 5 (2002) 372-374
5. Nathan D.G. Careers in translational clinical research-historical perspectives, future challenges. JAMA 287 18 (2002) 2424-2427
6. Ley T.J., and Rosenberg L.E. Removing career obstacles for young physician-scientists-loan-repayment programs. N Engl J Med 346 5 (2002) 368-373
7. Sung N.S., Crowley Jr. W.F., Genel M., et al. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA 289 10 (2003) 1278-1287
8. Dickler H.B., Fang D., Heinig S.J., et al. New physician-investigators receiving National Institutes of Health research project grants: a historical perspective on the "endangered species.". JAMA 297 22 (2007) 2496-2501
9. Nathan D.G. Clinical research: perceptions, reality, and proposed solutions. JAMA 280 16 (1998) 1427-1432
10. Nathan D.G., and Varmus H.E. The National Institutes of Health and clinical research: a progress report. Nat Med 6 11 (2000) 1201-1204
11. Nathan D.G., and Wilson J.D. Clinical research and the NIH-a report card. N Engl J Med 349 19 (2003) 1860-1865
12. Zerhouni E. Medicine. The NIH roadmap. Science 302 5642 (2003) 63-72
13. Williams G.H., Wara D.W., and Carbone P. Funding for patient-oriented research: critical strain on a fundamental linchpin. JAMA 278 3 (1997) 227-231
14. Kotchen T.A., Lindquist T., Malik K., and Ehrenfeld E. NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research. JAMA 291 7 (2004) 836-843
15. Kotchen T.A., Lindquist T., Miller Sostek A., et al. Outcomes of National Institutes of Health peer review of clinical grant applications. J Invest Med 54 1 (2006) 13-19
16. Mello M.M., Studdert D.M., and Brennan T.A. The rise of litigation in human subjects research. Ann Intern Med 139 1 (2003) 40-45
17. Wolf M. Clinical research career development: the individual perspective. Acad Med 77 11 (2002) 1084-1088
18. Association of American Medical Colleges. Promoting Translational and Clinical Science: The Critical Role of Medical Schools and Teaching Hospitals. Report of the AAMC's Task Force II on Clinical Research (2006), Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC