Results Summary and Professional Abstract
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 were unclear on the primary and secondary endpoints of the study, given descriptions of patient-level well-being outcomes, staff-level work-related outcomes, and patient-level HIV-related outcomes. The researchers addressed the concerns by more clearly delineating that the primary outcomes of the study were related to patient-symptom distress and well-being. Staff outcomes and patient outcomes related to HIV-symptom status were secondary.
- Reviewers noted that the conclusions overemphasized findings that were not significant but that suggested an intervention effect, rather than focusing on the pre-determined outcomes and statistical tests. The researchers revised the abstract and discussion to stress the lack of significant differences between the two interventions on the primary and secondary outcomes, and to consider factors that may have contributed to the lack of effect.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.