Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot 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 descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments.
The awardee made the following revisions in response to peer review:
- The awardee revised the explanation of randomization by emphasizing that it was impossible to randomly assign participants to exercise leaders because some facilities had too few leaders. Consequently, the resulting comparisons of outcomes for patients receiving the intervention from exercise leaders or facility staff should be considered exploratory and interpreted with caution.
- The awardee explained their choice of the standard intervention as the comparator to On the Move. The standard intervention did not have a walking or weight-bearing component, but the awardee stated this was typical for interventions usually offered at study sites.
- The awardee emphasized the exploratory nature of the heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) analyses, because they were not prespecified. The awardee indicated that readers should consider the findings tentative.
- The awardee provided more information about strengths and limitations of the study sample. The awardee addressed reviewers’ concerns about the homogeneity of the study population by commenting that although the sample had limited racial and ethnic diversity, participants’ living arrangements were diverse. The investigators also noted the exclusion from the study of patients with significant movement and sensory disabilities, or who needed assistive devices.
- The awardee expanded on the description of the dissemination of results. The awardee made additions including plans to apply to the Administration for Community Living for its consideration of the intervention as an evidence-based program and plans to develop a website with materials for implementing the intervention in other communities.
Final Research Report
View this project's final research report
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form