General PCRC Information

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.

The purpose of the committee is to ensure the appropriateness of the clinical research conducted within MPOG and the rational use of MPOG resources. It is primarily the responsibility of the institution’s MPOG Site Principal Investigator / Research Champion to review all proposals before submission to the PCRC. At each monthly PCRC meeting, the PCRC reviews and votes on one or multiple new proposals brought forth by researchers at MPOG institutions. With this in mind, only colleagues from active MPOG sites may submit a research proposal to the PCRC for review.

The PCRC Moderator Committee is a rotating group of methodological  and clinical content experts, who are familiar with MPOG research infrastructure. One member from the PCRC Moderator Committee will serve as moderator for all PCRC proposals presented on a specific date and will provide focused feedback to the study team(s).

Potential Voting Outcomes for PCRC Proposals

After presentation of a proposal and hearing the comments from the moderator and PCRC members, each institution present at the PCRC meeting will vote on the outcome of the proposal. Each institution present is allotted one vote per presentation, excluding the institution(s) presenting the proposal and institutions with named co-authors.

    • 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 the 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 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.