Results Summary and Professional Abstract
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. Those comments and responses included the following:
- The reviewers noted that both the new Care Transitions Measure (CTM-NEW) scale and the widely used existing Care Transitions Measure (CTM-15) had poor predictive validity for rehospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits in this study, although the CTM-15 has demonstrated better predictive validity in prior studies. The reviewers asked what role the CTM-NEW would then serve given its apparent lack of superiority over the CTM-15. The researchers acknowledged that the low predictive validity rates in this study for both measures could be the result of having a relatively homogenous sample and lower than expected rehospitalization rates. They commented on this issue in the report’s discussion section. The researchers agreed that the CTM-NEW would need further testing in a larger, more diverse environment to get better measures of psychometric performance.
- The reviewers noted that the study analyses imply that the CTM-NEW is a patient-level measure rather than a scale to make between-hospital comparisons. The researchers acknowledged that using patients in a single hospital is a major limitation of this study. They noted that it will be necessary to include patients from different health centers in the future in order to test how the scale can be used in the context of hospital comparisons.
- The reviewers noted that despite three general categories—trauma, general surgery, and acute cardiac event—included in tracking rehospitalization and ED visits, the sample was heavily weighted toward cardiac events. The researchers explained that this was due to the fact that trauma and general surgery patients were often discharged to short-term rehabilitation facilities, making them ineligible for participation.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.
^Milena Anatchkova, PhD was the original principal investigator for this project.