|This project's final research report is expected to be available by October 2019.|
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 context on how the rehabilitation treatment taxonomy this study described relate to World Health Organization-defined classification systems for rehabilitation services. In particular, they wanted more on this taxonomy’s place in the broader field of treatment characterization. The researchers responded that they had critically analyzed the degree to which the World Health Organization systems can address the requirements of the kind of system for specifying treatments that their research addressed. The researchers expressed that they did not feel the World Health Organization systems were adequate in several areas, for example, because of inflexibility in timetables. The researchers said they believe their taxonomy has value in both research and clinical settings. They also said they have received enough enthusiastic feedback to believe development of their taxonomy deserves to continue.
- Reviewers said the use of the word, ingredients, throughout the text was confusing. The researchers said that they used the word because clinicians are familiar with the concept of active ingredients. The researchers added a miniglossary to the appendix.
- Reviewers asked for additional information on the many clinicians involved in training and testing. The researchers added a table and additional text about clinician participants. The researchers also added to the description of how they recorded, processed, and implemented feedback from various audiences.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.