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 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.
Peer review identified the following strengths and limitations in the report:
- The reviewers were impressed with the quality of the report and the interesting subject of this methods development study.
- The reviewers questioned the 1:1 matching approach to create a dataset of matched patients with total knee replacement (TKR) and patients who chose medical therapy instead. The authors acknowledged that this matching approach could limit generalizability, as the medical therapy (non-TKR) patients were chosen to match the TKR patients, and not to provide a representative sample. But the authors noted that this approach reduces the effect of variables that influence choice of therapy and, independently, the outcome of therapy.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.