Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

Peer-Review Summary

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:

  • Reviewers commended the researchers on a methodologically sound study focused on improving statistical methods for confounder adjustment needed for causal inference models in patient-centered outcomes research. Many of the comments were requests for investigators to provide explanations of their highly-technical methods and results in language that would be understood by the general clinical researcher.
  • Reviewers questioned the generalizability of the statistical approaches tested in this study, as simulation studies are often plagued with limited generalizability. The researchers acknowledged this problem, but responded that they used three different datasets for the simulations, which would improve the overall generalizability. One of the specific advantages of their simulation approach, the authors stated, was the preservation of the complex relationships among baseline covariates, which would not be possible in other simulation frameworks.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Sebastian Schneeweiss, MD, MS, ScD
Brigham and Women's Hospital
$1,102,522
10.25302/7.2019.ME.13035638
Causal Inference for Effectiveness Research in Using Secondary Data

Key Dates

September 2013
July 2018
2013
2018

Study Registration Information

Tags

Has Results
Award Type
Health Conditions Health Conditions These are the broad terms we use to categorize our funded research studies; specific diseases or conditions are included within the appropriate larger category. Note: not all of our funded projects focus on a single disease or condition; some touch on multiple diseases or conditions, research methods, or broader health system interventions. Such projects won’t be listed by a primary disease/condition and so won’t appear if you use this filter tool to find them. View Glossary
Intervention Strategy Intervention Strategies PCORI funds comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) studies that compare two or more options or approaches to health care, or that compare different ways of delivering or receiving care. View Glossary
State State The state where the project originates, or where the primary institution or organization is located. View Glossary
Last updated: March 4, 2022