Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
Results of This Project
Related Journal Citations
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:
- The reviewers asked that the report include more interpretation of the findings and what they mean practically. In addition, they commented that results need to be written so that they are clear to a general medical research readership. The researchers revised the results section to include more interpretation and to make it more readable to those not accustomed to the types of analyses used in this study.
- Reviewers said it was not clear whether researchers made adjustments in statistical significance for multiple comparisons to reduce the potential for false-positive conclusions. The researchers said they did not adjust for multiple comparisons because they chose the primary outcome and time point of interest before starting the study, and because they were more interested in estimating treatment effects rather than measuring the statistical significance of the effects. By providing all the analyses they conducted and the estimated effect sizes for all comparisons, the researchers said they were providing transparency to allow readers to assess whether the results seem meaningful and whether the conclusions seem valid.
- Reviewers suggested that the two methods for classifying treatments—as advanced or contextualized—are not clearly delineated, and the overlap in these concepts would make analyses difficult to interpret. The researchers argued that the two methods of classification have a minimal relationship with each other. They agreed that a follow-up study could evaluate the effects of therapies with different combinations of contextual and advanced characteristics, but the current study indicates that the most beneficial approach seems to be to provide treatments that target advanced functions in the context of meaningful activities.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results