Results Summary and Professional Abstract
Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also confirms that the research has followed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts who were not members of the research team read a draft report of the research. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. Reviewers do not have conflicts of interest with the study.
The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve how the research team analyzed its results or reported its conclusions. Learn more about PCORI’s peer-review process here.
In response to peer review, the PI made changes including
- Addressing reviewer questions about their approach to missing data by explaining that with a lack of established methods for addressing missing data in choice experiments, the researchers chose to include all specific choice tasks with participant responses. Further, the researchers pointed out that data were missing infrequently in the study, so they did not feel that biased results due to missing data were a major issue.
- Updating their description of patient and stakeholder engagement to more clearly articulate how the researchers used community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles as a guide for study development and implementation.
- Revising the study conclusions to summarize the study’s effort to compare different methods for eliciting patient preferences and priorities. The researchers acknowledged that although they could not identify a “gold standard” to assess the validity of the results of this research, they did note some implications for other researchers engaging in this work.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.