Clinical Translational Research Awards

1
Clinical Translational Research Awards 2006
Review Process September 21, 2006 Sheryl K.
Brining, Ph.D. Director Office of Review
2
CTSA Review Summary

• 35 applications
• Divided randomly over two meetings
• 17 in first meeting
• 18 in second meeting
• Same Scientific Review Administrators ran both
  meetings Director and Deputy Director of NCRR
  Office of Review (OR)
• Scores for the CTSA center grant meetings and the
  CTSA planning grants were released after the
  completion of all three meetings

3
Reviewer Recruitment

• Input for potential reviewers sought from
  multiple NIH and other sources
• Trans-NIH CTSA Project Team
• Social Sciences
• Planning and Evaluation Officers
• Minority-serving institutions
• Public health, nursing, and dental sectors
• All suggested reviewers were vetted for conflicts
  of interest, expertise, and demographics
• Reviewers recruited in tandem for both meetings
  to ensure similar expertise across both meetings

4
Both CTSA Review Groups

• Applications with scores lt150
• Differed by 1 application between the two
  meetings
• Scores between 151 and 250
• Differed by two applications between the two
  meetings
• The average priority score differed by 2
  between the two meetings

5
Communication Strategy

• Communications with the Trans-NIH CTSA Project
  Team
• Discussed recruitment strategies and conflict of
  interest issues
• Provided draft meeting rosters, sample assignment
  sheet, and detailed reviewer communications/
• orientation plans
• Orientation of reviewers
• Timing and content of messages identical between
  the two meetings
• Review shell and a sample score sheet provided
  electronically
• CTSA RFA and URL for the power point slides from
  Dr. Zerhounis talk that launched the CTSA
  program May 2005
• Table illustrating major elements from the RFA to
  focus the review on infrastructure and to
  highlight the major themes of the CTSA program
• Coordination of CTSA review committee chairs