Principal Investigator:

Reviewer Name:

Application No:

Date:

University of Pittsburgh

Department of Critical Care Medicine

Scientific Affairs Committee

Scientific Review Guidelines and Scoring Sheet

CCM INNOVATION GRANT

Please use this form and the following guidelines when preparing written comments on seed grant applications assigned to you for review. This form will be referred to when discussing the projects at the Scientific Affairs Committee (SAC) meeting, and for reporting comments to the applicants. Please type your comments directly in the box provided, and return an electronic copy to the SAC Committee designee (Ms. Kim Kushon, ).

Review

Overall Score: Please check one
Must Fund  Do Not Score 
Should Fund 
Do Not Fund 

Please consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific and technical merit of the application and note the strengths and weaknesses where appropriate.

Significance
Does the study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be advanced? What effect will this study have on the objectives of this program?
Strengths
Weaknesses
Investigator(s)
Is the investigator appropriately suited to carry out the work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator? Has the investigator secured the support and guidance of a faculty mentor? Has the investigator adequately described how the project will be integrated with their career goals and future research plans?
Strengths
Weaknesses
Innovation
Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches or methods? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the project challenge existing paradigms or is it aimed at developing new methodologies or technologies?
Strengths
Weaknesses
Approach
Is the conceptual framework, design, methods and analyses adequately developed and appropriate to the aims? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics? Please emphasize measures, data analysis, sample size, procedures.
Strengths
Weaknesses
Environment
Strengths
Weaknesses

Additional Review Criteria

Protections for Human Subjects (if applicable)
Inclusion of Women, Minorities and Children (if applicable)
Vertebrate Animals (if applicable)

Additional Review Considerations

Budget and Period ofSupport
Reviewers, please note that it is critical that you review the budget carefully. If the investigator has requested more than $10,000, please comment on whether any or all of the amount over $10,000 is necessary to complete the project as described.
Recommended budget modifications, if any, or possible overlap identified:

Additional Comments to Applicant

Additional Comments/Guidance toApplicant (Optional)

SCORE:The scoring range is from 1.0 (highest score) to 5.0 (lowest score). Recommend a final scorereflecting the overall impact of the project on the field and the CCM Innovation Grant Program.

Total Score for Application: