Hip & Knee Surgery - Orthoworld

RESEARCH TO REALITYBuilding a Successful GrantFunding TeamAuthor: Chris PrzybyszewskiPlease retain formatting in this article. For instance, italicization.Many orthopaedic surgeons express a desire to perform research,and there is wide consensus that those physicians who engage inthe development of the technologies that will later help patients canreturn substantial personal, career and monetary benefits.At the same time, as with most any enterprise, funding the activitiesto perform successful research can be a barrier to entry. Frequently,I hear orthopaedic surgeons describe the entire funding process as agame that requires a clear goal, teamwork, a strategy and execution.A most common question is, What percentage of people applyingfor funding actually receives it? Referring to Tables 1 and 2, it isclear that any grant proposal process is extremely competitive.Table 1: OREF grant applications funded 2005 through 2007TYPE OF GRANT 2005 2006 2007ResearchResearch Number of58 47 55Number Applications of58 47 55ApplicationsNumber Funded 7 9 10Number Percentage Funded Funded 12% 7 19% 9 18% 10Percentage FundedRange of Scores12%1.00 - 1.3019%1.18 - 1.4718%1.35 - 1.81Range of Scores 1.00 - 1.30 1.18 - 1.47 1.35 - 1.81CareerCareer Number ofNumber Applications 13 15 9ofApplicationsNumber Funded 13 3 15 2 91Number Percentage Funded Funded3 2 123% 13% 11%Percentage FundedRange of Scores 1.34 23% - 1.60 1.16 13% - 1.26 11% 1.51Range of Scores 1.34 - 1.60 1.16 - 1.26 1.51ResidentResident Number ofNumber Applications 42 39 35ofApplicationsNumber Funded 42 8 39 9 35 8Number Percentage Funded Funded8 9 819% 23% 23%Percentage FundedRange of Scores 1.44 19% - 1.98 1.35 23% - 2.05 1.53 23% - 1.89Range of Scores 1.44 - 1.98 1.35 - 2.05 1.53 - 1.89Prospective ClinicalProspective Number of ClinicalNumber Applications 16 14 15ofApplicationsNumber Funded 16 1 14 1 15 2Number Percentage Funded Funded1 1 26% 7% 13%Percentage FundedRange of Scores 6% 1.33 7% 1.38 1.28 13% - 1.35Range of Scores 1.33 1.38 1.28 - 1.35Source: Orthopaedic Research & Education FoundationFor example, one of the primary sources for research funding fororthopaedic surgeons is the National Institute of Arthritis andMusculoskeletal and Skin Disease (NIAMS). According to that institute,the acceptance rate for those proposals that were reviewed (myemphasis) was 23 percent of all applications from 1998 to 2007.However, as indicated by the table, that percentage has dropped inrecent years partially due to less funds (because of economic trendsand political movements, more than anything else), and also anincrease in applications.As well, the note under Table 2 that “Success rates indicate thepercentage of reviewed research project grant (RPG) applicationsthat receive funding” is important, since roughly half (or less) of allproposals submitted to the NIAMS are reviewed and scored, as allNational Institutes of Health (NIH) agencies will quickly weed outthose proposals that the reviewers do not feel are competitiveenough for a full review. This practice cuts in half the success ratesin Table 2. Finally, it’s important to note that NIAMS success ratesare markedly lower than the other NIH agencies.Complementing these numbers are those from the OrthopaedicResearch & Education Foundation (OREF), whose success rates arecomparable (though somewhat lower) than the NIAMS. Whilethese groups are independent of one another, their proposal andreview processes are by design quite alike, so it makes some sensethat their numbers match.Looking past the simple (and perhaps disheartening) percentages,perspective is important, and perhaps the game analogy can again beuseful here. How many NFL football teams win each Sunday? Theanswer is that roughly 50 percent of the teams who play will win.However, the winning percentages of good teams is far higher.The same is true with proposals. Good teams are more competitiveto win these proposals, and building or being a part of a successfulteam can make all the difference in the world.The “Team”There has been a steady shift in grantors’ minds that collaborationis an essential element to successful research. Therefore, it’sbecome common for multiple primary investigators to seek fundingas a group. This funding team is usually multi-disciplinary andincludes experts from academia, clinical work and even industry.As well, each of these team members are usually recognized expertsin their fields, meaning multiple publications in peer-reviewedcontinued on page 5756 ORTHOPAEDIC PRODUCT NEWS • November/December 2009