Verified

AGES Clinical Research Grants

Australasian Gynaecological Endoscopy & Surgery Society

The AGES Society Research Fund has been the principal provider of gynaecological surgery research funding in Australasia for 22 years. During this time, more than $1,750,000 has been granted to over 128 research projects with an ongoing commitment to support research that leads to improvements in women’s health.

Key Dates

Submissions open for the 2027 round of funding – 31 July 2026
Submissions Close for the 2027 round of funding – 30 September 2026

Application Categories

Applications will be accepted from current AGES members in the following categories:
Fellows - Call for Submissions
Trainees & Young Fellows - Call for Submissions
Trainee Research: Metanalysis or Literary Review - Call for Submissions
*These documents are all in the 'supporting documents' section of this page.

Application Process

You can start the application process at any time. Use the application link to log into your Currinda profile and start your submission. You can make additions and changes to your grant application right up until the submission deadline.

When you start your application, you will be asked to submit the following details:

Your details as the primary investigator and the details of the Supervising Gynaecologist or FRANZCOG Supervisor
The title of the project
Your project outline or summary (500 words or less)
Your application document
The total dollar amount of your budget
Your detailed project budget
Your appendices document
The details of any additional funding received or applied for outside of the AGES Clinical Research Grants for this project

Please ensure all documents are uploaded as PDF.

Review Process

The AGES Society Research Committee is an independent committee, separate to the AGES Board, that is charged with assessing applications and allocating grants. The committee are chosen carefully to cover a wide range of expertise and to ensure representation from across Australia and New Zealand.

If there is a conflict of interest between a reviewer and an applicant, the COI is recorded and the submission is reviewed by a different committee member. Any committee member with a COI abstains from voting on that submission during the final review meeting.

The review process begins once the application deadline has passed.

1. The applications are collated and checked against known COI of the committee.

2. The submissions are then evenly allocated to committee members.

3. If a COI is then reported by a committee member the application is reassigned.

4. Each application is reviewed individually by two committee members, with no two applications reviewed by the same two members.

All applications are assessed using the following categories:

What is the clinical and scientific significance
Validity of the scientific approach
Feasibility of the study
Track record of the investigator
Availability of expertise and facilities
Appropriateness of budget
Overall suitability for an AGES grant

The full scoring rubric is available in the supporting documents below. All applications, both successful and unsuccessful will receive a copy of their marked scoring rubric with their results letter.

After the initial review, all scores are checked. If the scoring from two reviewers is contradictory, a third reviewer is assigned.

The committee then meets to discuss each of the applications and make a recommendation to the AGES board for final approval of funding selection.

AI Based Application Success Predictor

1. Direct relevance to gynaecological surgery ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

This is the most important fit factor.

AGES was established around education, surgical training and clinical research in gynaecological endoscopy and surgery. The Society particularly emphasizes minimally invasive approaches including:

Laparoscopic surgery
Hysteroscopic surgery
Vaginal surgery
Advanced operative laparoscopy
Endoscopic gynaecological procedures
Surgical complications
Pelvic-floor surgery
Surgical quality and safety.

A general obstetrics/gynaecology research project without a meaningful surgical component would therefore be a weaker AGES fit.

2. Clinical and scientific significance ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

This is explicitly one of the review categories used by the AGES Society Research Committee.

A competitive proposal should clearly demonstrate:

Important clinical problem → evidence gap → research question → potential improvement in surgical care.

Strong questions might address:

Which surgical approach produces better outcomes?
How can surgical complications be reduced?
Can minimally invasive surgery improve recovery?
Can a new technique improve safety?
Can surgical decision-making be improved?
Can postoperative outcomes be improved?
Can a procedure be made more efficient or cost-effective?

The project should be important not merely because it is technically interesting, but because it could improve patient care.

3. Validity of the scientific approach ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

AGES explicitly scores the validity of the scientific approach.

This means the proposal needs more than an interesting surgical idea.

It should include:

Clear research question
Appropriate study design
Defined primary endpoint
Appropriate secondary endpoints
Suitable patient population
Appropriate comparator/control
Sample-size justification
Appropriate statistical analysis
Ethical considerations
Predefined analysis strategy

For example:

Surgical technique A vs B → postoperative outcomes → complications → recovery → quality of life

is much stronger than simply describing outcomes after introducing a new procedure.

4. Feasibility ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Feasibility is explicitly scored by AGES reviewers.

This should be demonstrated through:

Adequate patient volume
Appropriate surgeon expertise
Access to operating theatres
Required equipment
Research staff
Data-management capability
Recruitment plan
Realistic timeline
Appropriate sample size

The strongest proposal is one where reviewers can immediately see:

“This team can actually complete this study.”

5. Improvement in women's health and surgical outcomes ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

AGES' overarching vision is to improve gynaecological health, with particular emphasis on safe and high-quality clinical and minimally invasive surgical care for women.

Therefore, proposals should connect their research to outcomes such as:

Reduced complications
Shorter hospital stay
Faster recovery
Reduced postoperative pain
Better fertility outcomes where relevant
Improved quality of life
Improved surgical safety
Better functional outcomes
Reduced reoperation
More efficient healthcare delivery

6. Investigator track record ⭐⭐⭐⭐☆

The track record of the investigator is explicitly included in the AGES scoring framework.

Reviewers are therefore likely to consider whether the applicant has:

Relevant clinical expertise
Research experience
Previous publications
Appropriate surgical experience
Evidence of completing previous projects
Relevant training

However, this does not mean that only senior researchers are competitive.

AGES has separate application categories for:

Fellows
Trainees & Young Fellows
Trainee research – meta-analysis/systematic review.

This provides a meaningful route for early-career investigators.

7. Appropriate expertise and facilities ⭐⭐⭐⭐☆

AGES explicitly evaluates the availability of expertise and facilities.

A proposal should identify:

Principal investigator
Supervising gynaecologist/FRANZCOG supervisor where applicable
Surgical expertise
Research/statistical support
Relevant hospital facilities
Endoscopic equipment
Imaging/pathology facilities if required
Data-management resources

For trainee applications, the supervising gynaecologist/FRANZCOG supervisor is part of the application information requested by AGES.

8. Innovation and clinical relevance ⭐⭐⭐⭐☆

AGES emphasizes innovation and the evaluation of evidence-based surgery. Its stated vision includes improving women's health through research, surgery and advocacy.

Potentially strong innovative topics include:

Minimally invasive surgery

New laparoscopic techniques
Advanced hysteroscopy
Vaginal surgery
Robotic surgery
Surgical simulation

Surgical technology

AI-assisted surgical decision-making
Image-guided surgery
Digital surgical assessment
New instruments
Surgical navigation

Surgical outcomes

Complication prediction
Enhanced recovery
Postoperative pain
Length of stay
Readmission
Patient-reported outcomes

Innovation should remain clinically meaningful, rather than simply introducing technology.

9. Budget appropriateness ⭐⭐⭐⭐☆

AGES explicitly evaluates the appropriateness of the budget.

The budget should be:

Clearly justified
Proportional to the project
Directly connected to the aims
Realistic
Free of unnecessary expenses

For a smaller research grant, a highly focused project with a modest budget is preferable to a broad study requiring resources far beyond the award.

10. Overall suitability for an AGES grant ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

This is explicitly one of the seven assessment categories.

This effectively means the proposal must answer:

Why should AGES, specifically, fund this project?

A good answer would be:

The project addresses a significant gynaecological surgical problem, evaluates an evidence-based or innovative minimally invasive approach, is feasible within the proposed resources, and has potential to improve surgical outcomes for women.

Specialties

Gynecology

Surgery

Eligibility Requirements

Applications must be submitted via the link on this page.
Applications must be no more than 8 pages, including the budget. This does not include your title page, contents page, references and appendices.
Your budget must be uploaded as a separate PDF document.
All appendices must be saved and uploaded as a single PDF file.
If you have an existing AGES Research Grant and your reporting requirements are not up to date, your submissions for funding in 2027 will be automatically withdrawn. Please contact the AGES Secretariat if you are unsure of the status of your reporting.

Eligible Countries:

Australia

New Zealand

Sponsor Details

Sponsor Institute/Organizations: Australasian Gynaecological Endoscopy & Surgery Society

Sponsor Type: Corporate/Non-Profit

Address: PO Box 717 Indooroopilly QLD 4068

Legal & Affiliation Disclaimer

Affiliation Disclaimer: Trialect operates independently and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or supported by any sponsors or organizations posting on the GrantsBoard platform. As an independent aggregator of publicly available funding opportunities, Trialect provides equal access to information for all users without endorsing any specific funding source, content, organization, or sponsor. Trialect assumes no responsibility for the content posted by sponsors or third parties.

Subscription Disclaimer: Upon logging into Trialect, you may choose to SUBSCRIBE to GrantsBoard for timely notifications of funding opportunities and to access exclusive benefits, such as priority alerts, reminders, personalized recommendations, and additional application support. However, users are advised to contact sponsors directly for any questions and are not required to subscribe to engage with funding opportunities.

Content Ownership and Copyright Disclaimer: Trialect respects the intellectual property rights of all organizations and individuals. All content posted on GrantsBoard is provided solely for informational purposes and remains the property of the original owners. Trialect does not claim ownership of, nor does it have any proprietary interest in, content provided by third-party sponsors. Users are encouraged to verify content and ownership directly with the posting sponsor.

Fair Use Disclaimer: The information and content available on GrantsBoard are compiled from publicly accessible sources in alignment with fair use principles under U.S. copyright law. Trialect serves as an aggregator of this content, offering it to users in good faith and with the understanding that it is available for public dissemination. Any organization or individual who believes their intellectual property rights have been violated is encouraged to contact us for prompt resolution.

Third-Party Posting Responsibility Disclaimer: Trialect is a neutral platform that allows third-party sponsors to post funding opportunities for informational purposes only. Sponsors are solely responsible for ensuring that their postings comply with copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. Trialect assumes no liability for any copyright or intellectual property infringements in third-party content and will take appropriate action to address any substantiated claims.

Accuracy and Verification Disclaimer: Trialect makes no warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information provided by sponsors. Users are advised to verify the details of any funding opportunity directly with the sponsor before taking action. Trialect cannot be held liable for any discrepancies, omissions, or inaccuracies in third-party postings.

Notice and Takedown Policy: Trialect is committed to upholding copyright law and protecting the rights of intellectual property owners. If you believe that content on GrantsBoard infringes your copyright or intellectual property rights, please contact us with detailed information about the claim. Upon receipt of a valid notice, Trialect will promptly investigate and, where appropriate, remove or disable access to the infringing content.

View Funding Opportunity