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.
- Reviewers’ comments and the investigator’s changes in response included the following: To address its adherence to PCORI’s Methodology Standards, the awardee clarified the ways patient and stakeholder engagement and contributions led to changes in study design. The awardee described how it used patient input in formulating the research question.
- The awardee revised the data analysis section of the methods section to more completely describe the statistical approaches it used to calculate power to detect clinically meaningful differences, conduct the main analyses, account for missing data, and do sensitivity analyses to evaluate the effects of the high attrition of participants during the follow-up period.
- The awardee revised its conclusions to clarify that the active promotora intervention did not significantly improve primary or secondary outcomes, and to acknowledge that the study did not prove that either of the interventions were responsible for improvements in the study outcomes over time.
Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.