Advertisement

Multicenter Research Studies in Radiology

Published:September 16, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2017.05.019

      Rationale and Objectives

      Here we review the current state of multicenter radiology research (MRR), and utilize a survey of experienced researchers to identify common advantages, barriers, and resources to guide future investigators.

      Materials and Methods

      The Association of University Radiologists established a Radiology Research Alliance task force, Multi-center Research Studies in Radiology, composed of 12 society members to review MRR. A REDCap survey was designed to gain more insight from experienced researchers. Recipients were authors identified from a PubMed database search, utilizing search terms “multicenter” or “multisite” and “radiology.” The survey included investigator background information, reasons why, barriers to, and resources that investigators found helpful in conducting or participating in MRR.

      Results

      The survey was completed by 23 of 80 recipients (29%), the majority (76%) of whom served as a primary investigator on at least one MRR project. Respondents reported meeting collaborators at national or international (74%) and society (39%) meetings. The most common perceived advantages of MRR were increased sample size (100%) and improved generalizability (91%). External funding was considered the most significant barrier to MRR, reported by 26% of respondents. Institutional funding, setting up a central picture archiving and communication system, and setting up a central database were considered a significant barrier by 30%, 22%, and 22% of respondents, respectively. Resources for overcoming barriers included motivated staff (74%), strong leadership (70%), regular conference calls (57%), and at least one face-to-face meeting (57%).

      Conclusions

      Barriers to MRR include funding and establishing a central database and a picture archiving and communication system. Upon embarking on an MRR project, forming a motivated team who meets and speaks regularly is essential.

      Key Words

      Abbreviations and Acronyms:

      ACRIN (American College of Radiology Imaging Network), COARDRI (Clinically Oriented Academic Radiology Department Research Initiative), MRR (multicenter radiology research)
      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

        • Sox H.
        • Stern S.
        • Owens D.
        • et al.
        Assessment of diagnostic technology in health care: rationale, methods, problems, and directions: monograph of the council on health care technology.
        (Washington, DC)1989
        • Atkins D.
        • Best D.
        • Briss P.A.
        • et al.
        Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
        BMJ. 2004; 328: 1490
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Schunemann H.J.
        • et al.
        GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 380-382
        • Mendelson D.S.
        • Erickson B.J.
        • Choy G.
        Image sharing: evolving solutions in the age of interoperability.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2014; 11: 1260-1269
        • Mennes M.
        • Biswal B.B.
        • Castellanos F.X.
        • et al.
        Making data sharing work: the FCP/INDI experience.
        Neuroimage. 2013; 82: 683-691
        • Andriole K.P.
        Security of electronic medical information and patient privacy: what you need to know.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2014; 11: 1212-1216
        • Kushida C.A.
        • Nichols D.A.
        • Jadrnicek R.
        • et al.
        Strategies for de-identification and anonymization of electronic health record data for use in multicenter research studies.
        Med Care. 2012; 50: S82-S101
        • Budin-Ljosne I.
        • Isaeva J.
        • Knoppers B.M.
        • et al.
        Data sharing in large research consortia: experiences and recommendations from ENGAGE.
        Eur J Hum Genet. 2014; 22: 317-321
        • Harris P.A.
        • Taylor R.
        • Thielke R.
        • et al.
        Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.
        J Biomed Inform. 2009; 42: 377-381
        • Sprague S.
        • Matta J.M.
        • Bhandari M.
        • et al.
        Multicenter collaboration in observational research: improving generalizability and efficiency.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91: 80-86
        • Hillman B.J.
        ACRIN—lessons learned in conducting multi-center trials of imaging and cancer.
        Cancer Imaging. 2005; 5: S97-S101
        • Appel L.J.
        A primer on the design, conduct, and interpretation of clinical trials.
        Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006; 1: 1360-1367
        • Cook D.
        • Brower R.
        • Cooper J.
        • et al.
        Multicenter clinical research in adult critical care.
        Crit Care Med. 2002; 30: 1636-1643
        • Lindquist R.
        • Treat-Jacobson D.
        • Watanuki S.
        A case for multisite studies in critical care.
        Heart Lung. 2000; 29: 269-277
        • Loue S.
        • Pike E.C.
        Ethical issues in multicenter/multisite studies.
        in: Loue S. Pike E.C. Case studies in ethics and HIV research. Springer US, Boston, MA2007: 175-203
        • Corley E.A.
        • Boardman P.C.
        • Bozeman B.
        Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: theoretical implications from two case studies.
        Res Policy. 2006; 35: 975-993
        • Irving S.Y.
        • Curley M.A.
        Challenges to conducting multicenter clinical research: ten points to consider.
        AACN Adv Crit Care. 2008; 19: 164-169
        • Chung K.C.
        • Song J.W.
        A guide to organizing a multicenter clinical trial.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010; 126: 515-523
        • Ehrlich P.F.
        • Newman K.D.
        • Haase G.M.
        • et al.
        Lessons learned from a failed multi-institutional randomized controlled study.
        J Pediatr Surg. 2002; 37: 431-436
        • Guirro R.
        • Ferrari Corrêa J.C.
        Projeto de pesquisa multicêntrico: um desafio.
        Braz J Phys Ther. 2011; 15: v-vi
        • Hogg R.J.
        Trials and tribulations of multicenter studies. Lessons learned from the experiences of the Southwest Pediatric Nephrology Study Group (SPNSG).
        Pediatr Nephrol. 1991; 5: 348-351
        • Maguire M.A.
        • Gore J.C.
        The current state of NIH funding of research in diagnostic radiology at U.S. medical schools.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2005; 2: 436-443
        • Kessel K.A.
        • Combs S.E.
        Data management, documentation and analysis systems in radiation oncology: a multi-institutional survey.
        Radiat Oncol. 2015; 10: 230
        • Hillman B.J.
        • Gatsonis C.
        The American College of Radiology Imaging Network—clinical trials of diagnostic imaging and image-guided treatment.
        Semin Oncol. 2008; 35: 460-469
        • Pisano E.D.
        • Gatsonis C.
        • Hendrick E.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.
        N Engl J Med. 2005; 353: 1773-1783
        • Church T.R.
        • Black W.C.
        • Aberle D.R.
        • et al.
        Results of initial low-dose computed tomographic screening for lung cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2013; 368: 1980-1991
        • Aberle D.R.
        • Chiles C.
        • Gatsonis C.
        • et al.
        Imaging and cancer: research strategy of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network.
        Radiology. 2005; 235: 741-751
        • Decker S.J.
        • Grajo J.R.
        • Hazelton T.R.
        • et al.
        Research challenges and opportunities for clinically oriented academic radiology departments.
        Acad Radiol. 2016; 23: 43-52
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        • Jiang A.
        Associations between NIH funding and advanced bibliometric indices among radiological investigators.
        Acad Radiol. 2016; 23: 669-674
        • Jiang A.
        • Ginocchio L.A.
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        Associations between academic rank and advanced bibliometric indices among United States academic radiologists.
        Acad Radiol. 2016; 23: 1568-1572
        • Dulhunty J.M.
        • Boots R.J.
        • Paratz J.D.
        • et al.
        Determining authorship in multicenter trials: a systematic review.
        Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2011; 55: 1037-1043
        • Rennie D.
        • Yank V.
        • Emanuel L.
        When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable.
        JAMA. 1997; 278: 579-585
        • Digiusto E.
        Equity in authorship: a strategy for assigning credit when publishing.
        Soc Sci Med. 1994; 38: 55-58
        • Whellan D.J.
        • Ellis S.J.
        • Kraus W.E.
        • et al.
        Method for establishing authorship in a multicenter clinical trial.
        Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 414-420