PCRC

Review

The Perioperative Clinical Research Committee (PCRC) coordinates the clinical research efforts of MPOG by reviewing all submitted research proposals and tracking the progress of ongoing research projects.

Perioperative Clinical Research Committee

The PCRC ensures that clinical research within MPOG is appropriate and that MPOG resources are used responsibly. Each proposal must be reviewed by the submitting institution’s MPOG Site PI / Research Champion before being submitted. At monthly meetings, the PCRC reviews and votes on new proposals from colleagues at active MPOG sites.

The PCRC Moderator Committee is a rotating group of methodological and clinical experts familiar with MPOG research. One moderator is assigned to each meeting to mediate proposal discussions and provide focused feedback to study teams.

Potential Outcomes for PCRC Proposals

After each proposal is presented and discussed, every institution represented at the PCRC meeting casts one vote on the proposal’s outcome. The presenting institution—and any institutions with named co‑authors—are excluded from voting.

  • The primary author will update the by-line author list with consideration given to faculty or staff providing notable large scientific contributions in advance of, or during the PCRC meeting, with the expectation that by-line authors will continue to adhere to ICMJE requirements for authorship.
  • Although no revisions to the proposal are required for proposals with an ‘Approve’ decision, the primary author may decide to make changes to the proposal based upon PCRC feedback. Once completed, the proposal is registered to the MPOG website’s current projects page.
  • The primary author is required to revise the proposal based on PCRC meeting feedback. 
  • The primary author will update the by-line author list with consideration given to faculty or staff providing notable, large scientific contributions in advance of, or during the PCRC meeting, with the expectation of by-line authors to continue to adhere to ICMJE requirements for authorship. 
  • The revised PCRC proposal is required to be completed within four weeks of presentation via an updated Google Doc; for revisions extending past four weeks, the study team must provide a written explanation for this delay to the MPOG Coordinating Center. 
  • Revisions made to the original proposal should be made transparent (ex. using red font or track changes) in the Google Doc. Additionally, the primary author is required to draft a “Response to Reviewers” document providing point-by-point responses to PCRC meeting feedback to accompany the revised proposal. 
  • The PCRC Moderator will be given seven days to review and adjudicate the revised PCRC proposal to ensure that the revised PCRC proposal addresses comments provided before and during the PCRC meeting.
  • Once all feedback is adequately addressed, as adjudicated by the PCRC Moderator, the revised proposal is formally approved and registered to the MPOG website’s current projects page.
  • The primary author is required to revise the proposal based on PCRC meeting feedback.
  • The primary author will update the by-line author list with consideration given to faculty or staff providing notable, large scientific contributions in advance of, or during the PCRC meeting, with the expectation of by-line authors to continue to adhere to ICMJE requirements for authorship. 
  • The revised PCRC proposal is required to be completed within four weeks of presentation via an updated Google Doc (for extensions; a written request and explanation must be submitted to the MPOG Coordinating Center). 
  • Revisions made to the original proposal should be made transparent (ex. using red font or track changes) in the Google Doc. Additionally, the primary author is required to draft a “Response to Reviewers” document providing point-by-point responses to PCRC meeting feedback to accompany the revised proposal. Once revisions are made, the study team emails the revised materials to mpog-research@med.umich.edu.  
  • The revisions will be reviewed by both the PCRC Moderator and MPOG Central to ensure that the revised PCRC proposal addresses comments provided before and during the PCRC meeting. This may involve additional feedback and electronic revisions, as discussed with the study team during the adjudication period.  
  • Once all feedback is adequately addressed, the primary author will be scheduled to present a brief ‘informational update’ at a future PCRC meeting. This will not involve additional voting. The revised proposal is then formally approved and registered to the MPOG website’s current projects page. 
  • The primary author is required to revise the proposal based on PCRC meeting feedback. 
  • The primary author will update the by-line author list with consideration given to faculty or staff providing notable, large scientific contributions in advance of, or during the PCRC meeting with the expectation of by-line authors to continue to adhere to ICMJE requirements for authorship. 
  • The revised PCRC proposal will be scheduled for PCRC re-presentation. Given the potential for extensive revisions, there is no time limit for the primary author to re-present the revised PCRC proposal. 
  • Revisions made to the original PCRC proposal should be made transparent (ex. using red font or track changes) in the Google Doc. Responses to feedback are required to be included in a “Response to Reviewers” document, to be included in the submission materials for PCRC re-presentation.
  • In contrast to an ‘Approve with Revisions’ decision, the PCRC moderator is not required to adjudicate feedback in the Google Doc. Instead, feedback will be addressed and discussed at the future PCRC re-presentation
  • In rare cases, the PCRC will decide that the study team may not re-present the proposed work at a future PCRC review.
For any inquiries please email
mpog-research@med.umich.edu