RESUMO
The Selux Next-Generation Phenotyping (NGP) system (Charlestown, MA) is a new antimicrobial susceptibility testing system that utilizes two sequential assays performed on all wells of doubling dilution series to determine MICs. A multicenter evaluation of the performance of the Selux NGP system compared with reference broth microdilution was conducted following FDA recommendations and using FDA-defined breakpoints. A total of 2,488 clinical and challenge isolates were included; gram-negative isolates were tested against 24 antimicrobials, and gram-positive isolates were tested against 15 antimicrobials. Data is provided for all organism-antimicrobial combinations evaluated, including those that did and did not meet FDA performance requirements. Overall very major error and major error rates were less than 1% (31/3,805 and 107/15,606, respectively), essential agreement and categorical agreement were >95%, reproducibility was ≥95%, and the average time-to-result (from time of assay start to time of MIC result) was 5.65 hours.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos , Anti-Infecciosos , Humanos , Antibacterianos/farmacologia , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Testes de Sensibilidade MicrobianaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: With the use of teleconferencing for grant peer-review panels increasing, further studies are necessary to determine the efficacy of the teleconference setting compared to the traditional onsite/face-to-face setting. The objective of this analysis was to examine the effects of discussion, namely changes in application scoring premeeting and postdiscussion, in these settings. We also investigated other parameters, including the magnitude of score shifts and application discussion time in face-to-face and teleconference review settings. DESIGN: The investigation involved a retrospective, quantitative analysis of premeeting and postdiscussion scores and discussion times for teleconference and face-to-face review panels. The analysis included 260 and 212 application score data points and 212 and 171 discussion time data points for the face-to-face and teleconference settings, respectively. RESULTS: The effect of discussion was found to be small, on average, in both settings. However, discussion was found to be important for at least 10% of applications, regardless of setting, with these applications moving over a potential funding line in either direction (fundable to unfundable or vice versa). Small differences were uncovered relating to the effect of discussion between settings, including a decrease in the magnitude of the effect in the teleconference panels as compared to face-to-face. Discussion time (despite teleconferences having shorter discussions) was observed to have little influence on the magnitude of the effect of discussion. Additionally, panel discussion was found to often result in a poorer score (as opposed to an improvement) when compared to reviewer premeeting scores. This was true regardless of setting or assigned reviewer type (primary or secondary reviewer). CONCLUSIONS: Subtle differences were observed between settings, potentially due to reduced engagement in teleconferences. Overall, further research is required on the psychology of decision-making, team performance and persuasion to better elucidate the group dynamics of telephonic and virtual ad-hoc peer-review panels.
Assuntos
Comunicação , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares/métodos , Telecomunicações , Análise de Variância , Pesquisa Biomédica , Humanos , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares/normas , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
There is a paucity of data in the literature concerning the validation of the grant application peer review process, which is used to help direct billions of dollars in research funds. Ultimately, this validation will hinge upon empirical data relating the output of funded projects to the predictions implicit in the overall scientific merit scores from the peer review of submitted applications. In an effort to address this need, the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) conducted a retrospective analysis of peer review data of 2,063 applications submitted to a particular research program and the bibliometric output of the resultant 227 funded projects over an 8-year period. Peer review scores associated with applications were found to be moderately correlated with the total time-adjusted citation output of funded projects, although a high degree of variability existed in the data. Analysis over time revealed that as average annual scores of all applications (both funded and unfunded) submitted to this program improved with time, the average annual citation output per application increased. Citation impact did not correlate with the amount of funds awarded per application or with the total annual programmatic budget. However, the number of funded applications per year was found to correlate well with total annual citation impact, suggesting that improving funding success rates by reducing the size of awards may be an efficient strategy to optimize the scientific impact of research program portfolios. This strategy must be weighed against the need for a balanced research portfolio and the inherent high costs of some areas of research. The relationship observed between peer review scores and bibliometric output lays the groundwork for establishing a model system for future prospective testing of the validity of peer review formats and procedures.
Assuntos
Apoio Financeiro , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares/normas , Revisão por Pares/normas , Publicações , Academias e Institutos , Distinções e Prêmios , HumanosRESUMO
Teleconferencing as a setting for scientific peer review is an attractive option for funding agencies, given the substantial environmental and cost savings. Despite this, there is a paucity of published data validating teleconference-based peer review compared to the face-to-face process. Our aim was to conduct a retrospective analysis of scientific peer review data to investigate whether review setting has an effect on review process and outcome measures. We analyzed reviewer scoring data from a research program that had recently modified the review setting from face-to-face to a teleconference format with minimal changes to the overall review procedures. This analysis included approximately 1600 applications over a 4-year period: two years of face-to-face panel meetings compared to two years of teleconference meetings. The average overall scientific merit scores, score distribution, standard deviations and reviewer inter-rater reliability statistics were measured, as well as reviewer demographics and length of time discussing applications. The data indicate that few differences are evident between face-to-face and teleconference settings with regard to average overall scientific merit score, scoring distribution, standard deviation, reviewer demographics or inter-rater reliability. However, some difference was found in the discussion time. These findings suggest that most review outcome measures are unaffected by review setting, which would support the trend of using teleconference reviews rather than face-to-face meetings. However, further studies are needed to assess any correlations among discussion time, application funding and the productivity of funded research projects.