Article Text
PDF
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors All four authors meet the criteria set out in ICMJE Recommendations 2013. IGC oversaw the project, LG took the lead and spent the most in terms of time, energy, ideas, suggestions for revisions and so on, with HFL and BEB second and third on that count.
Funding National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health (Award UL1 TR001102).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
↵i Although it is worth noting that, by reducing the absolute number of overlapping trials among all sites, institutional prioritisation will thereby reduce (though not eliminate) competition between sites, in addition to reducing competition at the same site.
Linked Articles
- Feature article
- Commentary
- Commentary
- Commentary
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- When clinical trials compete: prioritising study recruitment
- Trials are already being prioritised, just not at the institutional level
- Priority, prediction and the ethical research enterprise
- A review and analysis of accountability in global health funding, research collaborations and training: towards conceptual clarity and better practice
- Approaches to prioritising primary health research: a scoping review
- Using HTA and guideline development as a tool for research priority setting the NICE way: reducing research waste by identifying the right research to fund.
- Am I my brother’s gatekeeper? Professional ethics and the prioritisation of healthcare
- A comparison of justice frameworks for international research
- The volume-mortality relation for radical cystectomy in England: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics
- How digital health translational research is prioritised: a qualitative stakeholder-driven approach to decision support evaluation