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. The comments and responses included the following:

  • Reviewers asked for additional information on how researchers handled comorbid conditions in this study. The researchers responded that because they assumed that all hospice patients would have many comorbidities, they did not control for these comorbidities in their analyses.
  • Reviewers noted that the report’s background did not discuss the psychosocial, sociopolitical and sociomoral components of pain experience. The researchers responded that they did address these but used different language that referred instead to the patient and physician barriers to adequately assessing pain.
  • Reviewers lauded the researchers’ 20-year history of engaging patients and stakeholders in research but requested more specificity about the patient and stakeholder engagement activities that influenced this study. The researchers provided additional detail about the engagement activities that were part of and contributed to this study.
  • Reviewers noted that the seven- to nine-day assessment period was unlikely to be long enough to get good control over neuropathic pain and could explain the lack of significant impact of the intervention. The researchers acknowledged that the study period was brief but explained that this was the result of the short, median hospice stay of 19 days.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Robert E. Molokie, MD^
University of Illinois at Chicago
Computerized PAINRelieveIt Protocol for Cancer Pain Control in Hospice

Key Dates

September 2013
July 2018

Study Registration Information

^Diana J. Wilkie, PhD, MS, BSN, was the original principal investigator for this project.


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
Funding Opportunity Type
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
Research Priority Area
State State The state where the project originates, or where the primary institution or organization is located. View Glossary
Last updated: March 4, 2022