The Complexity of Conducting a Multicenter Clinical Trial: Taking It to the Next Level Stipulated by the Federal Agencies

The Milestones of Clinical Research for Young Generalist Physicians: Conducting and Publishing Studies

Clinical physicians have the potential to contribute to the progress of medicine and healthcare through research based on their diagnostic and treatment practices and supported by their educational background. However, in the field of general medicine in Japan, publication of such research in international journals may be limited by challenges in English proficiency and the lack of opportunities to focus on specific research themes amidst the diverse range of diseases treated in clinical practice. Furthermore, novice researchers without prior research experience may lack a comprehensive understanding of the overall research process, including study design and article publication. To address these challenges, we developed a set of 22 milestones that highlight the necessary skills required to conduct and successfully publish clinical research. This guideline will enable novice researchers to identify and address individual barriers to undertaking a research project. These milestones are categorized into five parts: 1) preparing to undertake research; 2) conducting clinical research; 3) writing the article; 4) submitting and achieving acceptance for publication; and 5) advanced skills. For each part, we provide detailed recommendations on the specific steps and methods involved. By working through these 22 milestones, novice researchers can objectively assess their own level of achievement as researchers and continuously clarify the next step of each round of research. Through this set of milestones, we aim to increase the quality and quantity of research publications in general medicine in academic journals, ideally enhancing the overall research process and advancing the field of medicine and healthcare overall.

Collaborative hand surgery clinical research without sharing individual patient data; proof of principle study

High-quality research in hand surgery is increasingly important. A vital component is national and international multicenter collaborative research because of better generalizability and larger sample sizes. However, sharing patient data between centers can be hampered by regulations and privacy issues or reluctance to share patient data. Therefore, in this paper, we illustrate an approach for collaborative clinical research without sharing patient data while obtaining similar outcomes. To illustrate that this collaborative clinical research approach without sharing patient data leads to similar outcomes compared to aggregating all individual patient data in one database, we simulate an approach of performing meta-analyses on summary statistics of individual-center data. In the simulation, we compare the results to conventional analyses in an existing multicenter database of patients treated for Dupuytren's disease at three different centers with either limited fasciectomy (LF) or needle aponeurotomy (PNF). We share example data and all analysis code in a public GitHub Library. We found similar results for the meta-analysis approach without sharing individual patient data as in the conventional approach for 1) the proportion of patients treated for recurrences, 2) the Total MHQ score after both treatments, 3) the comparison of Total MHQ score after both treatments, and 4) the comparison of both treatments when correcting for confounders with regression analysis. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: We illustrate how collaborative studies can be performed without sharing individual patient data while obtaining similar results as with conventional analyses. This approach can help speed up collaborative research without losing precision in outcome analysis.

Lessons from a multicenter clinical trial with an approved wearable electrocardiogram: issues and practical considerations

Although wearable electrocardiograms (ECGs) are being increasingly applied in clinical settings, validation methods have not been standardized. As an exploratory evaluation, we performed a multicenter clinical trial implementing an approved wearable patch ECG. Healthy male adults were enrolled in 2 study centers. The approved ECGs were deployed for 6 hours, and pulse rates were measured independently with conventional pulse oximetry at selected time points for correlation analyses. The transmission status of the data was evaluated by heart rates and classified into valid, invalid, and missing. A total of 55 subjects (40 in center 1 and 15 in center 2) completed the study. Overall, 77.40% of heart rates were within the valid range. Invalid and missing data accounted for 1.42% and 21.23%, respectively. There were significant differences in valid and missing data between centers. The proportion of missing data in center 1 (24.77%) was more than twice center 2 (11.77%). Heart rates measured by the wearable ECG and conventional pulse oximetry showed a poor correlation (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.0454). In conclusion, we evaluated the multicenter feasibility of implementing wearable ECGs. The results suggest that systems to mitigate multicenter discrepancies and remove artifacts should be implemented prior to performing a clinical trial.

Evidence-Based Medicine in Plastic Surgery: From Then to Now

SUMMARY

Evidence-based medicine, as described by Dr. Sackett, is defined as the "conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence, combined with individual clinical expertise and patient preferences and values, in making decisions about the care of individual patients." In the late 2000s, seminal articles in Clinics in Plastic Surgery and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery introduced evidence-based medicine's role in plastic surgery and redefined varying levels of evidence. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons sponsored the Colorado Springs Evidence-Based Medicine Summit that set forth a consensus statement and action plan regarding the increased incorporation of evidence-based medicine into the field; this key meeting ushered a new era among plastic surgeons worldwide. Over the past decade, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery has incorporated evidence-based medicine into the Journal through an increase in articles with level I and II evidence, new sections of the Journal, and the introduction of validated tools to help authors perform prospective and randomized studies that ultimately  led to best practices used today. Plastic surgery is a specialty built on problem-solving and innovation, values starkly in-line with evidence-based medicine. Evidence-based medicine is becoming more ingrained in our everyday practice and plastic surgery culture; however, we must work actively to ensure that we continue this trend. In the next decade, we will possibly see that level I and II evidence articles start to inhabit many of our journal issues.

Collaboration in Hand Surgery: Experiences From Silicone Arthroplasty in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Finger Replantation and Amputation Challenges in Assessing Impairment, Satisfaction, and Effectiveness, Wrist and Radius Injury Surgical Trial, and Surgery of the Ulnar Nerve

Outcomes research has historically been driven by single-center investigations. However, multicenter studies represent an opportunity to overcome challenges associated with single-center studies, including generalizability and adequate power. In hand surgery, most clinical trials are single-center studies, with few having randomized controls and blinding of both participants and assessors. This pervasive issue jeopardizes the integrity of evidence-based practice in the field. Because healthcare payers emphasize applying the best available evidence to justify medical services, multicenter research collaborations are increasingly recognized as an avenue for efficiently generating high-quality evidence. Although no study design is perfect, the potential advantages of multicenter trials include generalizability of the results, larger sample sizes, and a collaboration of experienced investigators poised to optimize protocol development and study conduct. As the era of single-center studies shifts toward investment in multicenter trials and clinical registries, investigators will inevitably be faced with the challenges of conducting or contributing to multicenter research collaborations. We present our experiences in conducting multicenter investigations to provide insight into this demanding and rewarding frontier of research.