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 reviewers commented, and the researchers made changes or provided responses. Those comments and responses included the following:

  • Reviewers noted the high rate of nonresponse on the follow-up surveys. Reviewers recommended that the researchers reduce the emphasis on quantitative findings. The researchers revised their report to point out that they could not draw conclusions based on the follow-up surveys because of the amount of missing outcome data.
  • Reviewers lauded the qualitative work done as part of this study. Given the problems with missing outcome data, they encouraged the researchers to focus on the qualitative results. The researchers reorganized the report to provide more emphasis on the qualitative methods and results.
  • Reviewers expressed  concern about some inconsistencies in what the researchers considered as primary outcomes of the randomized control trial. In some places, the researchers seemed to indicate that acceptability of the intervention was a major outcome of the trial. However, the reviewers pointed out that acceptability of the intervention could not be a trial outcome since it could only be measured in the intervention group. The researchers revised their report to clarify that acceptability was a major outcome for Aim 1 on the development of the intervention.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Lakshmanan Krishnamurti, MD
Emory University^
Comparative Effectiveness of a Decision Aid for Therapeutic Options in Sickle Cell Disease

Key Dates

May 2013
September 2018

Study Registration Information

^Lakshmanan Krishnamurti, MD, was affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh when this project was initially funded.


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
Populations Populations PCORI is interested in research that seeks to better understand how different clinical and health system options work for different people. These populations are frequently studied in our portfolio or identified as being of interest by our stakeholders. 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