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
- Expanding the tables in the report to address reviewer comments that unfamiliar outcome measures were inadequately described, making it difficult to understand correlations between variables
- Adding statements to clarify that all comparisons involving performance measures at inpatient and postdischarge stages are exploratory. Reviewers recommended stressing that the results were exploratory because the hypotheses were not prespecified; therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution and as subject to confirmatory studies.
- Providing more caveats in the Discussion about the interpretation of the study results, given the potential bias in the sample that completed the study. The authors noted that, compared with patients who did not complete the study, the patients who provided follow-up reports on performance measures were, in general, higher functioning and better educated.
Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
^Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago was the original organization associated with this project.