On the Value of Portfolio Diversity in Heart, Lung, and Blood Research

Galis, Zorina S.; Hoots, W. Keith; Kiley, James P.; Lauer, Michael S.

doi:10.1161/circresaha.112.279596

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 For the most part, successful applications are those that fall below a “percentile ranking” value of peer-review priority scores; the cut-off percentile ranking value, or “payline,” is determined by budgetary considerations. Despite longstanding tradition and affirmations, many question the ability of peer review, as it is currently practiced, to identify those research proposals most likely to have high impact, whether it is impact on scientific thought, clinical practice, or public policy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Percentile Ranking and Citation Impact of a Large Cohort of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–Funded Cardiovascular R01 Grants

Danthi

Shi

et al. 2014

Circulation Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale Funding decisions for cardiovascular R01 grant applications at NHLBI largely hinge on percentile rankings. It is not known whether this approach enables the highest impact science. Objective To conduct an observational analysis of percentile rankings and bibliometric outcomes for a contemporary set of funded NHLBI cardiovascular R01 grants. Methods and results We identified 1492 investigator-initiated de novo R01 grant applications that were funded between 2001 and 2008, and followed their progress for linked publications and citations to those publications. Our co-primary endpoints were citations received per million dollars of funding, citations obtained within 2-years of publication, and 2-year citations for each grant’s maximally cited paper. In 7654 grant-years of funding that generated $3004 million of total NIH awards, the portfolio yielded 16,793 publications that appeared between 2001 and 2012 (median per grant 8, 25th and 75th percentiles 4 and 14, range 0 – 123), which received 2,224,255 citations (median per grant 1048, 25th and 75th percentiles 492 and 1,932, range 0 – 16,295). We found no association between percentile ranking and citation metrics; the absence of association persisted even after accounting for calendar time, grant duration, number of grants acknowledged per paper, number of authors per paper, early investigator status, human versus non-human focus, and institutional funding. An exploratory machine-learning analysis suggested that grants with the very best percentile rankings did yield more maximally cited papers. Conclusions In a large cohort of NHLBI-funded cardiovascular R01 grants, we were unable to find a monotonic association between better percentile ranking and higher scientific impact as assessed by citation metrics.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Percentile Ranking and Citation Impact of a Large Cohort of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–Funded Cardiovascular R01 Grants

Danthi

Shi

et al. 2014

Circulation Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1–4 Within the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, slightly less than half the extramural funds are used to support clinical research; a substantial proportion of those funds support trials. 5 Some observers have offered evidence in support of the belief that the findings of federally funded trials are not always published in a timely manner. 4,6,7 This issue is of particular concern because randomized trials may be more likely to be published than the results of other kinds of clinical studies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication of Trials Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

Gordon¹,

Taddei-Peters²,

Mascette³

et al. 2013

N Engl J Med

Self Cite

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Rapid publication of clinical trials is essential in order for the findings to yield maximal benefits for public health and scientific progress. Factors affecting the speed of publication of the main results of government-funded trials have not been well characterized. METHODS We analyzed 244 extramural randomized clinical trials of cardiovascular interventions that were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). We selected trials for which data collection had been completed between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2011. Our primary outcome measure was the time between completion of the trial and publication of the main results in a peer-reviewed journal. RESULTS As of March 31, 2012, the main results of 156 trials (64%) had been published (Kaplan–Meier median time to publication, 25 months, with 57% published within 30 months). Trials that focused on clinical events were published more rapidly than those that focused on surrogate measures (median, 9 months vs. 31 months; P<0.001). The only independent predictors of more rapid publication were a focus on clinical events rather than surrogate end points (adjusted publication rate ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.26 to 3.53; P = 0.004) and higher costs of conducting the trial, up to a threshold of approximately $5 million (P<0.001). The 37 trials that focused on clinical events and cost at least $5 million accounted for 67% of the funds spent on clinical trials but received 82% of the citations. After adjustment of the analysis for a focus on clinical events and for cost, trial results that were classified as positive were published more quickly than those classified as negative. CONCLUSIONS Results of less than two thirds of NHLBI-funded randomized clinical trials of cardiovascular interventions were published within 30 months after completion of the trial. Trials that focused on clinical events were published more quickly than those that focused on surrogate end points. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.)

show abstract

“…In order to translate the latest fundamental discoveries to real-world health impact, the NHLBI seeks to identify and enable the most meritorious research with the firm understanding that all the various types of research are needed to inform each other, and is thus committed to a balanced overall research portfolio. 7 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%