Results Summary and Professional Abstract
Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
|Article Highlight: Men with prostate cancer face an array of treatment options. So this study's principal investigator and his team designed a tool that outlines the advantages and disadvantages of these options so patients can consider which best align with their preferences. As the research team reports in a new article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, compared to patients who received usual care, those who used the decision tool reported improved satisfaction with their care.|
Results of This Project
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. The comments and responses included the following:
- Reviewers asked for a clearer delineation of the roles of patients and stakeholders in influencing the design and conduct of the study. The researchers responded, describing the separate roles of patients and other stakeholders in the first phase of the study.
- Reviewers expressed concern about the number of study outcomes that researchers measured and analyzed at multiple time points, introducing the possibility for false positives or Type 1 error. Reviewers suggested that the researchers address this issue of multiple comparisons in part by using longitudinal analyses that would report an overall effect incorporating all time points. The researchers explained that there was one primary outcome, satisfaction with care, and that they used the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons to reduce the risk of Type 1 error.
- Reviewers also noted that one of the factors contributing to having multiple comparisons was that the researchers reported some outcome measures item-by-item rather than as a total or summary score. The reviewers suggested removing these single-item outcomes unless there was a strong rationale for item-by-item analysis. The researchers stated that the individual items represented different domains. Therefore, their individual results were of interest.
- Reviewers suggested adding information to the discussion section about how the PreProCare tool could be successfully implemented into clinical practices. The researchers responded, providing additional details on implementation of the study results. In the discussion section, the researchers described specific areas of clinical practices that would benefit from additional attention, such as physician and staff training, provision of the tool to patients before their scheduled visits and sharing results from the tool with patients and their clinicians.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.