Military and civilian collaboration

The power of numbers

Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the number and types of extremity injuries treated at civilian trauma centers (CIV CENs) versus military treatment facilities (MTFs) participating in the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC) and to investigate the potential benefits of a clinical research network that includes both civilian trauma centers and MTFs. Two analyses were performed. First, registry data collected on all surgically treated fractures at four core MTFs and 21 CIV CENs over one year were compared. Second, actual numbers and distribution of patients by type of injury enrolled in three METRC studies were compared. While MTFs demonstrated higher percentages of severe injuries including open fractures, traumatic amputations, vascular injuries, contamination, and injuries with bone, muscle, and skin loss when compared to CIV CENS, the CIV CENs treated a substantially higher number and, more importantly, enrolled patients in almost all categories. Comparison of service members to civilians was challenged by several differences between the two patient populations including mechanism of injury, the medical care environment, and confounding factors such as age, social setting and co-morbidities. Despite these limitations, in times without active military conflict, clinical trials will likely rely on civilian trauma centers for patient enrollment; only when numbers are pooled across a large number of centers can requisite sample sizes be met. These data demonstrate the benefits of maintaining a military-civilian partnership to address the major gaps in research defined by the Military.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number10
Pages (from-to)10-17
Number of pages8
JournalMilitary Medicine
Volume182
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2017

Fingerprint

Military Facilities
Trauma Centers
Wounds and Injuries
Extremities
Research
Traumatic Amputation
Open Fractures
Vascular System Injuries
Therapeutics
Sample Size
Registries
Clinical Trials
Morbidity
Bone and Bones
Muscles
Skin
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC) (2017). Military and civilian collaboration: The power of numbers. Military Medicine, 182, 10-17. [10]. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-16-00138

Military and civilian collaboration : The power of numbers. / Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC).

In: Military Medicine, Vol. 182, 10, 01.03.2017, p. 10-17.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC) 2017, 'Military and civilian collaboration: The power of numbers', Military Medicine, vol. 182, 10, pp. 10-17. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-16-00138
Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC). Military and civilian collaboration: The power of numbers. Military Medicine. 2017 Mar 1;182:10-17. 10. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-16-00138
Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC). / Military and civilian collaboration : The power of numbers. In: Military Medicine. 2017 ; Vol. 182. pp. 10-17.
@article{ee79c057449840f9869a757209c5409c,
title = "Military and civilian collaboration: The power of numbers",
abstract = "The purpose of this study was to compare the number and types of extremity injuries treated at civilian trauma centers (CIV CENs) versus military treatment facilities (MTFs) participating in the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC) and to investigate the potential benefits of a clinical research network that includes both civilian trauma centers and MTFs. Two analyses were performed. First, registry data collected on all surgically treated fractures at four core MTFs and 21 CIV CENs over one year were compared. Second, actual numbers and distribution of patients by type of injury enrolled in three METRC studies were compared. While MTFs demonstrated higher percentages of severe injuries including open fractures, traumatic amputations, vascular injuries, contamination, and injuries with bone, muscle, and skin loss when compared to CIV CENS, the CIV CENs treated a substantially higher number and, more importantly, enrolled patients in almost all categories. Comparison of service members to civilians was challenged by several differences between the two patient populations including mechanism of injury, the medical care environment, and confounding factors such as age, social setting and co-morbidities. Despite these limitations, in times without active military conflict, clinical trials will likely rely on civilian trauma centers for patient enrollment; only when numbers are pooled across a large number of centers can requisite sample sizes be met. These data demonstrate the benefits of maintaining a military-civilian partnership to address the major gaps in research defined by the Military.",
author = "{Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC)} and Stinner, {Daniel J.} and Wenke, {Joseph C.} and Ficke, {James R.} and Wade Gordon and James Toledano and Carlini, {Anthony R.} and Scharfstein, {Daniel O.} and MacKenzie, {Ellen J.} and Bosse, {Michael J.} and Hsu, {Joseph R.} and Paul Tornetta and Hope Carlisle and Heather Silva and Karunakar, {Madhav A.} and Stephen Sims and Seymour, {Rachel B.} and Hak, {David J.} and Henderson, {Corey E.} and Sanders, {Roy W.} and Henry Sagi and Barbara Steverson and Schmidt, {Andrew H.} and Westberg, {Jerald R.} and McKinley, {Todd O.} and Gaski, {Greg E.} and Kempton, {Laurence B.} and Vallier, {Heather A.} and Breslin, {Mary A.} and Smith, {Christopher S.} and Gower, {Lorie M.} and Jones, {Clifford B.} and Sietsema, {Debra L.} and Reid, {J. Spence} and Horne, {Andrea H.} and Osborn, {Patrick M.} and Michelle Norton and Cannada, {Lisa K.} and Theodore Miclau and Saam Morshed and Tigist Belaye and Kwong, {Jonathan K.} and Pollak, {Andrew N.} and O‘Toole, {Robert V.} and Theodore Manson and Sciandi, {Marcus F.} and Merryjessica Fuerst and Zych, {Gregory A} and Bergin, {Patrick F.} and Matthew Graves and Spitler, {Clay A.}",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.7205/MILMED-D-16-00138",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "182",
pages = "10--17",
journal = "Military Medicine",
issn = "0026-4075",
publisher = "Association of Military Surgeons of the US",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Military and civilian collaboration

T2 - The power of numbers

AU - Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC)

AU - Stinner, Daniel J.

AU - Wenke, Joseph C.

AU - Ficke, James R.

AU - Gordon, Wade

AU - Toledano, James

AU - Carlini, Anthony R.

AU - Scharfstein, Daniel O.

AU - MacKenzie, Ellen J.

AU - Bosse, Michael J.

AU - Hsu, Joseph R.

AU - Tornetta, Paul

AU - Carlisle, Hope

AU - Silva, Heather

AU - Karunakar, Madhav A.

AU - Sims, Stephen

AU - Seymour, Rachel B.

AU - Hak, David J.

AU - Henderson, Corey E.

AU - Sanders, Roy W.

AU - Sagi, Henry

AU - Steverson, Barbara

AU - Schmidt, Andrew H.

AU - Westberg, Jerald R.

AU - McKinley, Todd O.

AU - Gaski, Greg E.

AU - Kempton, Laurence B.

AU - Vallier, Heather A.

AU - Breslin, Mary A.

AU - Smith, Christopher S.

AU - Gower, Lorie M.

AU - Jones, Clifford B.

AU - Sietsema, Debra L.

AU - Reid, J. Spence

AU - Horne, Andrea H.

AU - Osborn, Patrick M.

AU - Norton, Michelle

AU - Cannada, Lisa K.

AU - Miclau, Theodore

AU - Morshed, Saam

AU - Belaye, Tigist

AU - Kwong, Jonathan K.

AU - Pollak, Andrew N.

AU - O‘Toole, Robert V.

AU - Manson, Theodore

AU - Sciandi, Marcus F.

AU - Fuerst, Merryjessica

AU - Zych, Gregory A

AU - Bergin, Patrick F.

AU - Graves, Matthew

AU - Spitler, Clay A.

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - The purpose of this study was to compare the number and types of extremity injuries treated at civilian trauma centers (CIV CENs) versus military treatment facilities (MTFs) participating in the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC) and to investigate the potential benefits of a clinical research network that includes both civilian trauma centers and MTFs. Two analyses were performed. First, registry data collected on all surgically treated fractures at four core MTFs and 21 CIV CENs over one year were compared. Second, actual numbers and distribution of patients by type of injury enrolled in three METRC studies were compared. While MTFs demonstrated higher percentages of severe injuries including open fractures, traumatic amputations, vascular injuries, contamination, and injuries with bone, muscle, and skin loss when compared to CIV CENS, the CIV CENs treated a substantially higher number and, more importantly, enrolled patients in almost all categories. Comparison of service members to civilians was challenged by several differences between the two patient populations including mechanism of injury, the medical care environment, and confounding factors such as age, social setting and co-morbidities. Despite these limitations, in times without active military conflict, clinical trials will likely rely on civilian trauma centers for patient enrollment; only when numbers are pooled across a large number of centers can requisite sample sizes be met. These data demonstrate the benefits of maintaining a military-civilian partnership to address the major gaps in research defined by the Military.

AB - The purpose of this study was to compare the number and types of extremity injuries treated at civilian trauma centers (CIV CENs) versus military treatment facilities (MTFs) participating in the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC) and to investigate the potential benefits of a clinical research network that includes both civilian trauma centers and MTFs. Two analyses were performed. First, registry data collected on all surgically treated fractures at four core MTFs and 21 CIV CENs over one year were compared. Second, actual numbers and distribution of patients by type of injury enrolled in three METRC studies were compared. While MTFs demonstrated higher percentages of severe injuries including open fractures, traumatic amputations, vascular injuries, contamination, and injuries with bone, muscle, and skin loss when compared to CIV CENS, the CIV CENs treated a substantially higher number and, more importantly, enrolled patients in almost all categories. Comparison of service members to civilians was challenged by several differences between the two patient populations including mechanism of injury, the medical care environment, and confounding factors such as age, social setting and co-morbidities. Despite these limitations, in times without active military conflict, clinical trials will likely rely on civilian trauma centers for patient enrollment; only when numbers are pooled across a large number of centers can requisite sample sizes be met. These data demonstrate the benefits of maintaining a military-civilian partnership to address the major gaps in research defined by the Military.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85015219842&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85015219842&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.7205/MILMED-D-16-00138

DO - 10.7205/MILMED-D-16-00138

M3 - Article

VL - 182

SP - 10

EP - 17

JO - Military Medicine

JF - Military Medicine

SN - 0026-4075

M1 - 10

ER -