- The PCORI Strategic Plan
- Our Programs
- Our Vision & Mission
- Financial Statements and Reports
- The PCORI Strategic Plan
- Board of Governors
- Methodology Committee
- Authorizing Law
- Evaluating Our Work
- PCORI's Advisory Panels
- Procurement Opportunities
Past Opportunities to Provide Input
- Patient-Centered Economic Outcomes Landscape (2023-2024)
- Systematic Review of Audio Care for the Management of Mental Health and Chronic Conditions (2023) -- Draft Key Questions
- Proposed New Methodology Standards for Usual Care as a Comparator (2023)
- Stakeholder Views on Components of 'Patient-Centered Value' in Health and Health Care (2023)
- PCORI's Proposed Research Agenda (2021-2022)
- Proposed National Priorities for Health (2021)
- Proposed Principles for the Consideration of the Full Range of Outcomes Data in PCORI-Funded Research (2020)
- Proposed New PCORI Methodology Standards (2018)
- Data Access and Data Sharing Policy: Public Comment (2017)
- Proposed New PCORI Methodology Standards (2017)
Comment on the Proposed New and Revised PCORI Methodology Standards (2016)
- 1. Standards for Formulating Research Questions
- 10: Standards for Studies of Diagnostic Tests
- 12. Standards on Research Designs Using Clusters
- 13: General Comments on the Proposed Revisions to the PCORI Methodology Standards
- 2: Standards Associated with Patient-Centeredness
- 3: Standards for Data Integrity and Rigorous Analysis
- 4: Standards for Preventing and Handling Missing Data
- 5: Standards for Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects
- 6: Standards for Data Registries
- 7: Standards for Data Networks as Research-Facilitating Structures
- 8. Standards for Causal Inference Methods
- 9. Standards for Adaptive Trial Designs
- Peer-Review Process Comments (2014)
- Draft Methodology Report Public Comment Period (2012)
- Past Opportunities to Provide Input
At PCORI, we know that when it comes to research, methods matter. Patients, clinicians, and other healthcare stakeholders won’t fully trust the results of PCORI-funded research if we can’t vouch for the way the projects were conducted. To help ensure that everyone can have confidence in the results of studies we fund, we have created the PCORI Methodology Standards. Our first standards were released in 2012, and we have now posted additions and revisions to those standards for public comment.
The PCORI Methodology Committee developed the initial set of standards, meeting one of the requirements of our authorizing law. As minimal requirements for scientifically valid patient-centered clinical research, these standards have been used by our awardees and many others in the field. However, knowledge about what makes for sound research is constantly growing, so the Methodology Committee's work wasn't done.
Over the past year, the committee worked on improvements to the original standards. On December 7, 2015, our Board of Governors reviewed a proposed update that included eight new standards, as well as changes to existing standards that reflect advances in methodology, clarify content, or make the standards better align with one another and other PCORI guidance. The Board approved posting of the draft standards for public comment. Comments are welcome through late March.
The original methodology standards fell into 11 categories. Of the eight new standards, three were added to these existing categories. The other five new standards make up a new category. It is called Standards for Designs Using Clusters. In creating these standards, the Methodology Committee worked with experts on this type of design. The addition of this category reflects the increasing number of clinical studies that use such protocols. These studies tend to require large numbers of patients and complex designs and analyses.
Cluster designs are usually based on the model of the randomized controlled trial (RCT). In traditional RCTs, each research participant is randomly assigned, individually, to one of the medical interventions being studied. In a cluster RCT, groups, or clusters, of participants are randomly assigned to the interventions. This design is especially appropriate for complex interventions that involve interactions between patients and clinical staff.
For example, a study design using clusters might randomly assign each participating clinic to provide one of the study’s intervention to its patients, and then the research team would examine the outcomes experienced by the individual patients attending each of those clinics.
Changes to the original standards include revised wording of 25 standards and grouping of some standards. One standard was deleted, and nine remain unchanged.
What Do You Think?
We are eager to obtain reactions to the important Methodology Standards changes from the communities that conduct and use clinical research. We request your feedback on the new and revised standards during the public comment period, which ends April 11. We also look forward to hearing from you about new areas of research methodology for which additional standards would be valuable.
The Methodology Committee will continue to provide critical guidance to us and to the larger research community on advancing high-quality patient-centered outcomes research as it fulfills our mandate to develop and improve the methods used in this research.
February 2, 2017, 1:32 PM
Comment by PCORI,
Hi Jennifer, we sincerely appreciate your comment.
February 1, 2017, 9:56 PM
Comment by Jennifer Averill,
While at least one comment addressed the need for qualitative and mixed methods design evaluative criteria, I want to emphasize that the level of detail, specificity and rigor attached to qualitative data analysis is lacking. When patients' voices are so central to research, researchers need to know that qualitative findings were achieved with the same level of transparency, detail and rigor as those for statistical and quantitative work--please add the qualitative markers for excellence in data analysis.