HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: CJN.00130605v1 1/2/340    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Agarwal, R. Articles by Mehta, R. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Agarwal, R. Articles by Mehta, R. L.

Strategies for Successful Patient Oriented Research: Why Did I (not) Get Funded?

Rajiv Agarwal^*, Glenn M. Chertow, and Ravindra L. Mehta

^* Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana; University of California, San Francisco, California; and University of California, San Diego, California

Address correspondence to: Dr. Rajiv Agarwal, VA Medical Center, 111N, 1481 West 10th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202. Phone: 317-554-0000 ext. 2241; Fax: 317-554-0298; E-mail: ragarwal{at}iupui.edu

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.