Oznaka obrazca: A R R S - R P R O G - J P - P r i j a v a / 2 0 1 8 / 8 0 / 0 c / K 1 - 1

Evaluation form - REVIEWER'S REPORT - FINAL

Public call - funding of research programme - 2018

A. R A P P O R T E U R

Role Rapporteur 1 - 1

B. G E N E R A L I N F O R M A T I O N

Public Call ARRS-RPROG/2018

Application n u m b e r 80
Type of the Continuation o f the existing p r o g r a m m e
application
Title of the Emergency conditions in medicine
research
programme
Code of the P3-0331
programme
Programme l e a d e r 1161 M a r k o NoE
Research University Medical Centre Ljubljana
organizations University Medical Centre Ljubljana
Research hours 1844
per y e a r
Period(s) o f funded 1 . 1 . 2 0 0 4 - 1 . 1 . 2 0 1 8 , evaluated in 2 0 0 8 and 2 0 1 4
funding
Scientific discipline 3 M e d i c a l sciences
/ research field
3.08 P u b l i c health (occupational s a f e t y )

C. I N T R O D U C T I O N

Award criteria f o r applied research p r o g r a m

Experts will e v a l u a t e on t h e basis o f the criteria a s follows:
1: Scientific excellence o f researchers
2: Relevance o f researchers' a c h i e v e m e n t s
3: Operational c a p a c i t y and v i t a l i t y o f the g r o u p o f researchers
4: Scientific, technological o r innovative excellence
5: Potential i m p a c t d u e t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t , d i s s e m i n a t i o n a n d u s e o f the expected research
results

Grades and Thresholds

Each criterion is evaluated on a scale f r o m zero t o five. H a l f p o i n t scores m a y be given ( 0 , 0 . 5 ,
1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5).

Interpretation o f the scores:

0 ( N o n c o m p e t i t i v e ) : T h e proposal fails to a d d r e s s t h e c r i t e r i o n o r cannot be assessed d u e
to missing o r incomplete information,
1 ( P o o r ) : The c r i t e r i o n is i n a d e q u a t e l y addressed, o r t h e r e a r e serious i n h e r e n t
weaknesses,
2 ( F a i r ) : The p r o p o s a l b r o a d l y addresses t h e criterion, b u t t h e r e are s i g n i f i c a n t w e a k n e s s e s ,
3 ( G o o d ) : The proposal addresses t h e criterion well, b u t a n u m b e r of shortcomings a r e

ARRS-RPROG-1P-Prijava/2018/80/0c/1(1-1 1 / 5
 present,
4 (Very good): The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of
shortcomings are present,
5 (Excellent): The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any
shortcomings are minor.

D. R E V I E W E R ' S R E P O R T

1. Scientific excellence of researchers

The following aspects will be taken into account:
• outstanding achievements (Indicator 1.3.);
o W h a t is the impact of publications? What is the quality of publications of the group
according to the prestige of the journal or reputation of the publisher?
• status and international excellence (Indicator 1,6.);
• A r e the group members the recipients of prestigious awards, members of an academy
of arts and sciences, members of international advisory boards or boards of scientific
or professional associations, chief editors o r members o f the editorial board o f a
prominent scientific journal?
• participation in international projects or parts of international projects (Indicator 1.8.);
• W h a t is t h e i n v o l v e m e n t o f group members in EU research programmes, o t h e r
international research and development programmes; was there any other
international cooperation in the last five years or in the last funding period (including
the scope of one's own part and role in the project, with the exception o f bilateral
cooperation)?
Data source:
• Application form: ARRS-RPROG-JP-PRIJAVA/2018, Section B
• Detailed composition of the programme group with quantitative indicators

Score 1:
Final score 1: 3,0 - Good _J
A written comment on individual assessment elements under criterion. The comment is
obligatory and must be consistent with the score given:

The research group reports 23 publications related to the research subject during the last 3
years. Several of those articles have been published in high impact factor journal
(Circulation, Resuscitation). All of these publications are in the group's research theme,
namely the management of patients who have had cardiac arrest.

In 2016, the project leader was senior author of a research letter in Circulation which
reported results of a randomized controlled trial comparing ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in
comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest undergoing PCI. THis study suggests
that ticagrelor may be superior to clopidogrel in this indication.

The project leader, Marco Noc, is a well-known researcher. He published more than 100
articles which were frequently cited (with an h-index at 38 for him). He belongs to several
scientific societies and is regularly invited to give lectures in international conferences. He's
also member of editorial board of different journals.

There is no participation in international projects, projects of the ministry, only some other
project is mentioned.

2. Relevance of researchers' achievements

The following aspects will be taken into account:
• proven relevant economic, social or cultural achievements in economic, social and cultural
activities (Indicator 2.2.),
o H o w important (and what kind) are the economic achievements, for example, the
participation i n creating new products, technologies, technology solutions,
innovations (if applicable)?
o H o w i m p o r t a n t (and w h a t kind) are the social and cultural achievements (social
infrastructure, public administration, cultural development, health care, protection of
natural and cultural heritage, promotion o f the country, access to foreign skills,
involvement in the international division of labour, human resources development) (if
applicable)? What is t h e impact o f the programme group on the development of

ARRS-RPROG-JP-Prijava/2018/80/001-1 2 /5
 society?
• mobility of young Ph. D.'s (Indicator 2.3.)?
6 H o w do you assess the employment of young Ph. D.'s after the completion o f their
education (by sector of activity)?
• dissemination of research results and intellectual property protection (Indicator 2.4.),
o Does the group appropriately disseminate its research results?
o Does the programme group have an appropriate approach in the field o f intellectual
property protection (if applicable)?
o Does the programme have an appropriate approach to the open access publishing of
research results? What is t h e impact o f the open access publishing o f research
results on the quality of overall publishing within the group?
Data source:
• Application form: ARRS-RPROG-W-PRIJAVA/2018, Section C

Score 2:
Final score 2: 2,0 - Fair _J
A written comment on individual assessment elements under criterion. The comment is
obligatory and must be consistent with the score given:

The team has disseminated the results of its research well through numerous scientific
publications (more than 20 articles have been published by the research team, all related to
the project's topic). However, no patents have been filed. Moreover, given the nature of the
research, no economic, social or cultural achievements can be expected from this research
project.There is no work strictly speaking medical-economic carried out by the group.

The only achievement listed in the application is textbook on ECG in acute cardiac
conditions. No doubt, this is an important tool for students and physicians in their everyday
work. No other achievements (economic, social, cultural etc) are listed. Unfortunately no PhD
students are employed to the project. Also, no master students in the project.
The dissemination is mainly through the international meetings and conferences as well as
through publications in international journals.
No other methods (web-page, networks, decision-makers) are used.
No detail is provided regarding the PhD program related to the team's project.

3. Operational capacity and vitality of the group of researchers

The following aspects will be taken into account:
• s t r u c t u r e o f the g r o u p o f researchers (head, experienced and young researchers)
(Indicator 3.1.),
o Does the head researcher have relevant leadership references?
o I s the group adequately structured to ensure long-term and quality performance (in
the research field of the programme group)?
• equipment availability (Indicator 3.2.),
o I s the programme group properly equipped with research equipment or does it have
access to research equipment and infrastructure required to implement the research
programme?
• engagement in projects (Indicator 3.3.),
o How is the content integrated into the existing institutional, national and
international research and development programmes and projects?
Data source:
• Application form: ARRS-RPROG-JP-PRIJAVA/2018, Section D

Score 3:
Final score 3: 2,5 - Fair to Good _J
A written comment on individual assessment elements under criterion. The comment is
obligatory and must be consistent with the score given:

The leader of the group is a well-known researcher in the field of the project. He was
senior/coordinating author of many scientific articles related to the project area. The team is
also involved in large international randomized controlled trials (COOL AMI).

Unfortunately, there is no description of the other part of the group, so it is not possible to

ARRS-RPROG-JP-Prijava/2018/80/0c/K1-1 3 /5
 assess the competence of the group. No detail on the structure of the research group is
provided. I t is then difficult to evaluate this aspect.

All equipment needed to conduct the research seem to be available although no spectific
section in the project detailed those aspects.

4. Scientific, technological or innovative excellence

The following aspects will be taken into account:
• appropriateness of addressing important research challenges (Indicator 4.1.),
6 To what extent does the proposal o f the research programme address i m p o r t a n t
research challenges?
• c l a r i t y o f the concept, including t h e i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y aspect and relevance o f t h e
objectives (Indicator 4.3)
c. I s the concept of the research programme, including the interdisciplinary aspect and
relevance of the objectives, clearly formulated?
• originality of the ideas (Indicator 4.4.),
o To what extent are the ideas original?
Data source:
• Section E - Pdf Attachment

Score 4:
Final score 4: 3,5 - Good to Very good _J
A written comment on individual assessment elements under criterion. The comment is
obligatory and must be consistent with the score given:

The main objective of the project is to evaluate the real incidence of stent thrombosis in
survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest treated with percutaneous coronary intervention
and mild therapeutic hypothermia. The methods are clearly stated. The perspectives of the
project could be more clearly identified.

This question is indeed not yet definitely adressed in the literature. However, this project is
designed t o generate hypotheses that could lead to future research and should not have a
direct impact on patient management.

Moreover and unfortunately there is no interdisciplinary aspect mentioned.

5. Potential impact due to the development, dissemination and use of the expected research
results
The following aspects will be taken into account:
• importance for the development of science or profession (Indicator 5.4.),
6 W h a t is t h e potential significance o f the research p r o g r a m m e proposal f o r t h e
development of science and profession?
• potential impact on economic, social and cultural development (Indicator 5.1.),
6 W h a t is the potential economic impact, for example, the participation in creating new
products, technologies, technological solutions, innovations?
co W h a t is the potential impact on social and cultural development, for example, social
infrastructure, public administration, cultural development, health care, protection of
natural and cultural heritage, promotion of the country, access to foreign knowledge,
involvement in the international division of labour, human resources development?
Data source:
• Section F - Pdf Attachment

Score 5:
Final score 5: 3,0 - Good _J
A written comment on individual assessment elements under criterion. The comment is
obligatory and must be consistent with the score given:

The project can have some professional as well as scientific value. I f the study the real
incidence of after OHCA stent thrombosis will be confirmed and this is high, the authors
expect significant impact on stenting startegy in the acute settings. Also, it is possible that

ARRS-RPROG-JP-Prijava/2018/80/0c/k1-1 4 /5
 some new treatment strategies will be developed. The topic is not well studied before and
therefore the opportunity for the publications in the high quality journals is good.

As discussed above, the potential impact of the expected results of the study on patients'
management remains unclear to me. No potential impact on economic, social and cultural
development has been identified by the authors.

TOTAL SCORE: 14,0

E I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, I have no direct or indirect conflict of

interest in the evaluation of this proposal in accordance with the »Statement on a
conflict of interest and confidentiality« form signed.

Datum: 30.6.2018

Obrazec: ARRS-RPROG-EvalForm-2018-K v 1 . 0 0 - P 0
24- E 9 -113- 4 2 - 6 6 - 5 F -1C-A3-6C- 4 2 -E7- 6 3 - D D - 9 3 - 2 A -AC-9F- 1 6 - 5 D - 4 0

ARRS-RPROG-JP-Prijava/2018/80/0c/K 1-1 5 /5