Advertisement

Opportunities for Patient-centered Outcomes Research in Radiology

Published:October 22, 2015DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2015.08.027
      Recently created in 2010, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) supports patient-centered comparative effectiveness research with a focus on prioritizing high-impact studies and improving trial design methodology. The Association of University Radiologists Radiology Research Alliance Task Force on patient-centered outcomes research in Radiology aims to review recently funded imaging-centric projects that adhere to the methodologies established by PCORI. We provide an overview of the successful application of PCORI standards to radiology topics, highlight how these methodologies differ from other forms of radiology research, and identify opportunities for new projects as well as potential barriers for involvement. Our hope is that review of specific case examples in radiology will clarify the use and value of PCORI methods mandated and supported nationally by the Affordable Care Act.

      Key Words

      Abbreviations and Acronyms:

      ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009), CER (Comparative effectiveness research), PCOR (Patient-centered outcomes research), PCORI (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute), PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Gabriel S.E.
        • Normand S.-L.T.
        Getting the methods right—the foundation of patient-centered outcomes research.
        NEJM. 2012; 367: 787-790
        • Carlos R.C.
        • Buist D.S.
        • Wernli K.J.
        • et al.
        Patient-centered outcomes in imaging: quantifying value.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2012; 9: 725-728
        • Government Accountability Office
        Higher use of advanced imaging services by providers who self-refer costing Medicare millions.
        (Available at:) (Accessed August 20, 2015)
        • Congressional Budget Office
        Research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments: issues and options for an expanded federal role.
        (Available at:) (Accessed August 20, 2015)
        • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
        National priorities and research agenda.
        (Available at:) (Accessed June 6, 2015)
        • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
        Patient-centered outcomes research.
        (Available at:) (Accessed June 6, 2015)
        • Gazelle G.S.
        • Kessler L.
        • Lee D.W.
        • et al.
        A framework for assessing the value of diagnostic imaging in the era of comparative effectiveness research.
        Radiology. 2011; 261: 692-698
        • Thorpe K.E.
        • Zwarenstein M.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • et al.
        A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 464-475
        • Lencioni R.A.
        • Allgaier H.P.
        • Cioni D.
        • et al.
        Small hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: randomized comparison of radio-frequency thermal ablation versus percutaneous ethanol injection.
        Radiology. 2003; 228: 235-240
        • Foster N.
        • Little P.
        Methodological issues in pragmatic trials of complex interventions in primary care.
        Br J Gen Pract. 2012; 62: 10-11
        • Lee C.I.
        • Jarvik J.G.
        Patient-centered outcomes research in radiology: trends in funding and methodology.
        Acad Radiol. 2014; 21: 1156-1161
        • Lingard L.
        • Albert M.
        • Levinson W.
        Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research.
        BMJ. 2008; 337: a567
        • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
        Comparative effectiveness of surveillance imaging modalities in breast cancer survivors.
        (Available at:) (Accessed June 6, 2015)
        • Albright K.
        • Gechter K.
        • Kempe A.
        Importance of mixed methods in pragmatic trials and dissemination and implementation research.
        Acad Pediatr. 2013; 13: 400-407
        • Macpherson H.
        Pragmatic clinical trials.
        Complement Ther Med. 2004; 12: 136-140
        • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Methodology Committee
        The PCORI methodology report.
        (Available at:) (Accessed June 7, 2015)
        • Fleurence R.L.
        • Forsythe L.P.
        • Lauer M.
        • et al.
        Engaging patients and stakeholders in research proposal review: the Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute.
        Ann Intern Med. 2014; 161: 122-130
        • Rawson J.V.
        Comparative effectiveness research in radiology: patients, physicians and policy makers.
        Acad Radiol. 2011; 18: 1067-1071
        • Kelly A.M.
        • Cronin P.
        • Carlos R.C.
        Introduction to value-based insurance design.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2008; 5: 1118-1124
        • Hoffman A.
        • Montgomery R.
        • Aubry W.
        • et al.
        How best to engage patients, doctors, and other stakeholders in designing comparative effectiveness studies.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2010; 29: 1834-1841
        • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
        Annual reports and financials.
        (Available at:) (Accessed June 22, 2015)
        • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
        PCORnet: the national patient-centered clinical research network.
        (Available at:) (Accessed June 22, 2015)
        • Ropp A.
        • Lin C.T.
        • White C.S.
        Coronary computed tomography angiography for the assessment of acute chest pain in the emergency department: evidence, guidelines, and tips for implementation.
        J Thorac Imaging. 2015; 30: 169-175
        • Mainiero M.B.
        • Lourenco A.
        • Mahoney M.C.
        • et al.
        ACR appropriateness criteria breast cancer screening.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2013; 10: 11-14
        • Wender R.
        • Fontham E.T.
        • Barrera Jr, E.
        • et al.
        American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2013; 63: 107-117
        • Sharpe Jr, R.E.
        • Levin D.C.
        • Parker L.
        • et al.
        The effect of the controversial US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on the use of screening mammography.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2013; 10: 21-24
        • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
        Enabling a paradigm shift: a preference tolerant RCT of personalized vs. annual screening for breast cancer.
        (Available at:) (Accessed June 9, 2015)
        • American College of Radiology
        ACR comments PCORI draft national priorities and research agenda.
        (Available at:) (Accessed June 7, 2015)
        • Constantinescu L.
        • Kim J.
        • Kumar A.
        • et al.
        A patient-centric distribution architecture for medical image sharing.
        Health Inf Sci Syst. 2013; 1: 3
        • Peterson D.
        • Arntfield R.T.
        Critical care ultrasonography.
        Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2014; 32: 907-926
        • Chacko J.
        • Brar G.
        Bedside ultrasonography—applications in critical care: part II.
        Indian J Crit Care Med. 2014; 18: 376-381
        • Gallagher R.A.
        • Levy J.A.
        Advances in point-of-care ultrasound in pediatric emergency medicine.
        Curr Opin Pediatr. 2014; 26: 265-271
        • Peters K.
        Reasons why women choose a medical practice or a women's health centre for routine health screening: worker and client perspectives.
        J Clin Nurs. 2010; 19: 2557-2564
        • Korst R.J.
        Systematic approach to the management of the newly found nodule on screening computed tomography: role of dedicated pulmonary nodule clinics.
        Thorac Surg Clin. 2013; 23: 141-152
        • Taplin S.H.
        • Weaver S.
        • Salas E.
        • et al.
        Reviewing cancer care team effectiveness.
        J Oncol Pract. 2015; 11: 239-246
        • Glasgow R.E.
        • Vinson C.
        • Chambers D.
        • et al.
        National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions.
        Am J Public Health. 2012; 102: 1274-1281
        • Rubenstein L.V.
        • Pugh J.
        Strategies for promoting organizational and practice change by advancing implementation research.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2006; 21: S58-S64
        • Thrall J.H.
        Appropriateness and imaging utilization: “computerized provider order entry and decision support”.
        Acad Radiol. 2014; 21: 1083-1087
        • Rawson J.V.
        • Cronin P.
        Decision support.
        Acad Radiol. 2014; 21: 1081-1082
        • Geyer B.C.
        • Xu M.
        • Kabrhel C.
        Patient preferences for testing for pulmonary embolism in the ED using a shared decision-making model.
        Am J Emerg Med. 2014; 32: 233-236
        • Marin J.R.
        • Grudzen C.R.
        Emergency physician radiation risk communication: a role for shared decision-making.
        Acad Emerg Med. 2014; 21: 211-213
        • Robey T.E.
        • Edwards K.
        • Murphy M.K.
        Barriers to computed tomography radiation risk communication in the emergency department: a qualitative analysis of patient and physician perspectives.
        Acad Emerg Med. 2014; 21: 122-129
        • Hillman B.J.
        Informed and shared decision making: an alternative to the debate over unproven screening tests.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2005; 2: 297-298
        • Bouchard K.
        • Dubuisson W.
        • Simard J.
        • et al.
        Systematic mixed-methods reviews are not ready to be assessed with the available tools.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 926-928
        • Stange K.C.
        • Crabtree B.F.
        • Miller W.L.
        Publishing multimethod research.
        Ann Fam Med. 2006; 4: 292-294
        • Arts D.G.
        • De Keizer N.F.
        • Scheffer G.J.
        Defining and improving data quality in medical registries: a literature review, case study, and generic framework.
        J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002; 9: 600-611
        • Cheng L.T.
        • Zheng J.
        • Savova G.K.
        • et al.
        Discerning tumor status from unstructured MRI reports—completeness of information in existing reports and utility of automated natural language processing.
        J Digit Imaging. 2010; 23: 119-132
        • Meystre S.M.
        • Savova G.K.
        • Kipper-Schuler K.C.
        • et al.
        Extracting information from textual documents in the electronic health record: a review of recent research.
        Yearb Med Inform. 2008; : 128-144
        • Haak D.
        • Page C.E.
        • Reinartz S.
        • et al.
        DICOM for clinical research: PACS-integrated electronic data capture in multi-center trials.
        J Digit Imaging. 2015; 28: 558-566https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-015-9802-8