TY - JOUR
T1 - Multicenter Research Studies in Radiology
AU - Dashevsky, Brittany Z.
AU - Bercu, Zachary L.
AU - Bhosale, Priya R.
AU - Burton, Kirsteen R.
AU - Chatterjee, Arindam R.
AU - Frigini, L. Alexandre R.
AU - Heacock, Laura
AU - Herskovits, Edward H.
AU - Lee, James T.
AU - Subhas, Naveen
AU - Wasnik, Ashish P.
AU - Gyftopoulos, Soterios
N1 - Funding Information:
Once a research collaboration is established, funding remains the most significant barrier to MRR. Among our survey respondents, the majority received NIH and governmental support (78%), which may be attributed to the high level of experience of the survey respondents. However, nationally, less than 50% of academic centers are funded, with a large disparity among radiology departments. For example, in 2003, the top four medical schools receiving funds accounted for 37.6% of all grants awarded to diagnostic radiology (22) . For diagnostic radiology, research support is predominantly provided by the NIH, with the top five NIH departments providing radiology funding, as follows: the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, the National Center for Research Resources, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (22) . Funding remains a necessity for data management, documentation, equipment, research personnel and coordinators, IT support, and protected time for the collaborators (11,21,23) .
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 The Association of University Radiologists
PY - 2018/1
Y1 - 2018/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Multicenter research
KW - Radiology Research Alliance (RRA)
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029439644&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.acra.2017.05.019
DO - 10.1016/j.acra.2017.05.019
M3 - Article
C2 - 28927579
AN - SCOPUS:85029439644
VL - 25
SP - 18
EP - 25
JO - Academic Radiology
JF - Academic Radiology
SN - 1076-6332
IS - 1
ER -