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 reviewers commented and the researchers made changes or provided responses. Those comments and responses included the following:
- The reviewers noted that the original goals of this study, comparing different treatments for transverse myelitis (TM), could not be accomplished as planned because the researchers could not meet recruitment goals. However, the study did provide important information about a related disease, acute flaccid myelitis (AFM), that saw a surge in diagnoses during the study. The reviewers accepted the change in the study’s goal, from comparing treatments for TM to comparing AFM to two types of TM. The reviewers’ comments primarily asked the researchers to clarify how they conducted their analyses. The researchers also simplified some of the descriptions of diagnostic similarities and differences between AFM and TM.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.
Other Health Services Interventions