Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

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. Those comments and responses included the following:

  • The reviewers asked for a statistical description of the overlap of estimated propensity scores within each cluster group. The researchers added figures showing the distribution of estimated propensity scores to illustrate the overlaps in the simulations and data examples.
  • The reviewers asked that the limitations sections in the abstract and discussion sections be expanded to include some of the statistical limitations they had described. The researchers did so, and added a description of the usefulness of also examining full matching to the limitations section.
  • The reviewers asked why particular previously published methods, including preferential matching, were not used in simulations. The researchers explained that one previously published method was not used in simulations here because of differences in the data types used. Regarding preferential matching, the researchers added text to the background section explaining how preferential matching could be integrated with the hierarchical-matching method that performed best in this study. The researchers said that in future work they will compare preferential matching with preferential implementation of the hierarchical-matching method they used in this report.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Mi-Ok Kim, PhD
University of California, San Francisco^
$1,130,486
10.25302/06.2020.ME.140313922
Propensity Score-Based Methods for CER Using Multilevel Data: What Works Best When

Key Dates

September 2014
September 2019
2014
2019

Study Registration Information

^Mi-Ok Kim, PhD, was affiliated with Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center when the project was initially awarded.

Tags

Has Results
Award Type
Health Conditions Health Conditions These are the broad terms we use to categorize our funded research studies; specific diseases or conditions are included within the appropriate larger category. Note: not all of our funded projects focus on a single disease or condition; some touch on multiple diseases or conditions, research methods, or broader health system interventions. Such projects won’t be listed by a primary disease/condition and so won’t appear if you use this filter tool to find them. View Glossary
Intervention Strategy Intervention Strategies PCORI funds comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) studies that compare two or more options or approaches to health care, or that compare different ways of delivering or receiving care. View Glossary
State State The state where the project originates, or where the primary institution or organization is located. View Glossary
Last updated: March 4, 2022