Strategies for successful patient oriented research

why did I (not) get funded?

Rajiv Agarwal, Glenn M. Chertow, Ravindra L. Mehta

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Writing grants that are subsequently funded is an integral part of the process of patient-oriented research. A catalogue of common deficiencies that are identified in the grant review process can yield valuable insights into the process of grant writing. This article provides the authors' opinion on the common pitfalls in the current patient-oriented research applications that if identified before submission can lead to a stronger application. The authors participated in the review of clinical research grants to the National Kidney Foundation and catalogued the weaknesses of the grants that were reviewed and discussed. The top five reasons identified with grants were problems with study design (76%); statistical issues (34%); general issues such as ownership of the work, mentor, and environment (29%); weak hypothesis (24%); and problems with the research question, such as novelty or lack of creation of new data (24%). Patient-oriented research grants that have strong mentoring, are hypothesis driven, and have a strong study design that addresses sample size, analysis, and confounding factors have an increased chance of yielding high-quality research and, therefore, successful funding.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)340-343
Number of pages4
JournalClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Volume1
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2006

Fingerprint

Organized Financing
Research
Mentors
Ownership
Sample Size
Statistical Factor Analysis
Kidney

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Strategies for successful patient oriented research : why did I (not) get funded? / Agarwal, Rajiv; Chertow, Glenn M.; Mehta, Ravindra L.

In: Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, Vol. 1, No. 2, 03.2006, p. 340-343.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d902f46c4d6645889a83ac3d0490b201,
title = "Strategies for successful patient oriented research: why did I (not) get funded?",
abstract = "Writing grants that are subsequently funded is an integral part of the process of patient-oriented research. A catalogue of common deficiencies that are identified in the grant review process can yield valuable insights into the process of grant writing. This article provides the authors' opinion on the common pitfalls in the current patient-oriented research applications that if identified before submission can lead to a stronger application. The authors participated in the review of clinical research grants to the National Kidney Foundation and catalogued the weaknesses of the grants that were reviewed and discussed. The top five reasons identified with grants were problems with study design (76{\%}); statistical issues (34{\%}); general issues such as ownership of the work, mentor, and environment (29{\%}); weak hypothesis (24{\%}); and problems with the research question, such as novelty or lack of creation of new data (24{\%}). Patient-oriented research grants that have strong mentoring, are hypothesis driven, and have a strong study design that addresses sample size, analysis, and confounding factors have an increased chance of yielding high-quality research and, therefore, successful funding.",
author = "Rajiv Agarwal and Chertow, {Glenn M.} and Mehta, {Ravindra L.}",
year = "2006",
month = "3",
doi = "10.2215/CJN.00130605",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "340--343",
journal = "Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN",
issn = "1555-9041",
publisher = "American Society of Nephrology",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Strategies for successful patient oriented research

T2 - why did I (not) get funded?

AU - Agarwal, Rajiv

AU - Chertow, Glenn M.

AU - Mehta, Ravindra L.

PY - 2006/3

Y1 - 2006/3

N2 - Writing grants that are subsequently funded is an integral part of the process of patient-oriented research. A catalogue of common deficiencies that are identified in the grant review process can yield valuable insights into the process of grant writing. This article provides the authors' opinion on the common pitfalls in the current patient-oriented research applications that if identified before submission can lead to a stronger application. The authors participated in the review of clinical research grants to the National Kidney Foundation and catalogued the weaknesses of the grants that were reviewed and discussed. The top five reasons identified with grants were problems with study design (76%); statistical issues (34%); general issues such as ownership of the work, mentor, and environment (29%); weak hypothesis (24%); and problems with the research question, such as novelty or lack of creation of new data (24%). Patient-oriented research grants that have strong mentoring, are hypothesis driven, and have a strong study design that addresses sample size, analysis, and confounding factors have an increased chance of yielding high-quality research and, therefore, successful funding.

AB - Writing grants that are subsequently funded is an integral part of the process of patient-oriented research. A catalogue of common deficiencies that are identified in the grant review process can yield valuable insights into the process of grant writing. This article provides the authors' opinion on the common pitfalls in the current patient-oriented research applications that if identified before submission can lead to a stronger application. The authors participated in the review of clinical research grants to the National Kidney Foundation and catalogued the weaknesses of the grants that were reviewed and discussed. The top five reasons identified with grants were problems with study design (76%); statistical issues (34%); general issues such as ownership of the work, mentor, and environment (29%); weak hypothesis (24%); and problems with the research question, such as novelty or lack of creation of new data (24%). Patient-oriented research grants that have strong mentoring, are hypothesis driven, and have a strong study design that addresses sample size, analysis, and confounding factors have an increased chance of yielding high-quality research and, therefore, successful funding.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34548447102&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34548447102&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2215/CJN.00130605

DO - 10.2215/CJN.00130605

M3 - Article

VL - 1

SP - 340

EP - 343

JO - Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN

JF - Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN

SN - 1555-9041

IS - 2

ER -