Research Review and Prioritization Group (RRPG) Process

Download Content

The NYC-CDRN Research Review and Prioritization Group (RRPG) is comprised of five members, including a clinician-researcher, biostatistician, data analyst, patient engagement officer and project manager.

The RRPG process entails:

  1. Review research requests to evaluate them according to review criteria.
  2. Identify additional investigators, clinicians, patients and stakeholders by reaching out to our Patient and Clinician Advisory Board, site specific Principal Investigators and by using informatics tools in collaboration with our CTSAs.
  3. Provide guidance to the Governance Board for approving partnership requests and if applicable, issuing Letters of Support.
  4. Prioritize study requests (which have been BRANY IRB approved) according to the relevance to the NYC-CDRN population and the potential impact of the project for final approval by the Governance Board.

RRPG Review Criteria

Criterion Description
Significance and Rationale
  • Background studies or rationale for the proposed project
  • Specific aims analysis (gap in evidence and innovativeness)
  • Relevance to decision makers/public health
  • Impact to healthcare practice/Implementation of study results
Approach
  • Methodology
  • Design
  • Feasibility
  • Statistical analysis/power of calculation
Patient-centeredness
  • Patient engagement throughout research
  • Population representativeness
  • Patient-reported outcomes
  • Dissemination of study results to the community
Data Assessment
  • Data availability (central vs. federated)
  • Data de-duplication
  • Data linking (retrospective + prospective plans)
  • Data storage (security + server)
Feasibility
  • Meets NYC-CDRN goals
  • Investigators are trained and have prior experience in field
  • NYC-CDRN co-PI/co-I and/or patient co-I identified
  • Meets budget/resource requirements

RRPG Scoring Rubric

Overall Impact or Criterion Strength Score Descriptor Recommendation
High 1 Exceptional Recommend LOS
2 Outstanding
3 Excellent
Medium 4 Very Good Recommend revisions
5 Good
6 Satisfactory
Low 7 Fair Recommend investigator re-evaluates proposal
8 Marginal
9 Poor