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
- Completing multivariate analyses to account for repeated measures. These analyses were initially planned by the researchers, but did not appear to have been carried out before peer review, and reviewers were concerned that univariate analyses could be misinterpreted given the relationships among the outcome variables. The researchers also completed multivariate analyses focusing on one-year health status outcomes that help understand the importance of variables that predict patients' one-year health status outcomes.
- Addressing reviewer concerns about the handling of missing data by providing a more extensive description of actions that the researchers took to reduce the frequency of missing data, and using a multiple-imputation approach to account for missing data. The PI indicated that this approach was appropriate because missing data were infrequent in the analyses.
- Providing details on the sites that were included in the study, and why they were included. The researchers stressed their intentions of focusing on sites with sicker patients who they believed would benefit most from treatment.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.