Dataset Information

Clinical trials proposed for the VA Cooperative Studies Program: Success rates and factors impacting approval.

ABSTRACT: The process by which funding organizations select among the myriad number of proposals they receive is a matter of significant concern for researchers and the public alike. Despite an extensive literature on the topic of peer review and publications on criteria by which clinical investigations are reviewed, publications analyzing peer review and other processes leading to government funding decisions on large multi-site clinical trials proposals are sparse. To partially address this gap, we reviewed the outcomes of scientific and programmatic evaluation for all letters of intent (LOIs) received by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) between July 4, 2008, and November 28, 2016. If accepted, these LOIs represented initial steps towards later full proposals that also underwent scientific peer review. Twenty-two of 87 LOIs were ultimately funded and executed as CSP projects, for an overall success rate of 25%. Most proposals which received a negative decision did so prior to submission of a full proposal. Common reasons for negative scientific review of LOIs included investigator inexperience, perceived lack of major scientific impact, lack of preliminary data and flawed or confused experimental design, while the most common reasons for negative reviews of final proposals included questions of scientific impact and issues of study design, including outcome measures, randomization, and stratification. Completed projects have been published in high impact clinical journals. Findings highlight several factors leading to successfully obtaining funding support for clinical trials. While our analysis is restricted to trials proposed for CSP, the similarities in review processes with those employed by the National Institutes of Health and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute suggest the possibility that they may also be important in a broader context.

SUBMITTER: Burnaska DR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8287148 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesRapid ultrafiltration rates are associated with adverse outcomes among patients on hemodialysis. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is considering an ultrafiltration rate quality measure for the ESRD Quality Incentive Program. Two measure developers proposed ultrafiltration rate measures with different selection criteria and specifications. We aimed to compare the proposed ultrafiltration rate measures and quantify dialysis facility operational burden if treatment times were extended to lower ultrafiltration rates.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsData were taken from the 2012 database of a large dialysis organization. Analyses of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services measure considered 148,950 patients on hemodialysis, and analyses of the Kidney Care Quality Alliance measure considered 151,937 patients. We described monthly patient and facility ultrafiltration rates and examined differences in patient characteristics across ultrafiltration rate thresholds and differences in facilities across ultrafiltration rate measure scores. We computed the additional treatment time required to lower ultrafiltration rates <13 ml/h per kilogram.ResultsUltrafiltration rates peaked in winter and nadired in summer. Patients with higher ultrafiltration rates were younger; more likely to be women, nonblack, Hispanic, and lighter in weight; and more likely to have histories of heart failure compared with patients with lower ultrafiltration rates. Facilities had, on average, 20.8%±10.3% (July) to 22.8%±10.6% (February) of patients with ultrafiltration rates >13 ml/h per kilogram by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services monthly measure. Facilities had, on average, 15.8%±8.2% of patients with ultrafiltration rates ≥13 ml/h per kilogram by the Kidney Care Quality Alliance annual measure. Larger facilities (>100 patients) would require, on average, 33 additional treatment hours per week to lower all facility ultrafiltration rates <13 ml/h per kilogram when total treatment time is capped at 4 hours.ConclusionsUltrafiltration rates vary seasonally and across clinical subgroups. Extension of treatment time as a strategy to lower ultrafiltration rates may pose facility operational challenges. Prospective studies of ultrafiltration rate threshold implementation are needed.

Dataset Information

Clinical trials proposed for the VA Cooperative Studies Program: Success rates and factors impacting approval.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets