Titre :
|
NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research. (2004)
|
Auteurs :
|
Theodore-A KOTCHEN ;
Ellie EHRENFELD ;
Teresa LINDQUIST ;
Karl MALIK ;
National Institutes of Health. Center for Scientific Review. Bethesda. MD. USA
|
Type de document :
|
Article
|
Dans :
|
JAMA - Journal of the american medical association (vol. 291, n° 7, 2004)
|
Pagination :
|
836-843
|
Langues:
|
Anglais
|
Mots-clés :
|
Essai thérapeutique
;
Homme
;
Organisation
;
Etats Unis
;
Amérique
;
Amérique du Nord
|
Résumé :
|
[BDSP. Notice produite par INIST-CNRS VR0xudwm. Diffusion soumise à autorisation]. 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 27607 to 34422 per year) were submitted by MDs, and 27.5% of awards (ranging from 8495 to 10769 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<. however median priority scores vs and funding rates were less favorable for r01 applications clinical research than nonclinical this trend was most convincingly observed categorized as mechanisms of disease or trials interventions similar trends grant other r01. concerns about safety privacy human subjects may have contributed to the outcomes applications. conclusion : although physicians compete favorably in peer review process are modestly laboratory research.>
|