Abstract

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.