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. Those comments and responses included the following:
- The reviewers pointed to the finding that passive automated alerts for physicians to prescribe primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSF) decreased such prescribing for patients with intermediate risk for febrile neutropenia. They urged the researchers to consider this a positive finding given that trial outcomes did not indicate PP-CSF reduced risk for febrile neutropenia among cancer patients with intermediate risk. The researchers added language to the report’s discussion section about the possibility that in cases where there is clinical uncertainty about the usefulness of a particular treatment, automated alerts may be particularly helpful to prompt clinicians to follow clinical protocols.
- The reviewers noted that the use of PP-CSF presents a high financial cost and asked that the researchers address this cost in relation to their study findings. The researchers added language regarding the high cost of PP-CSF to the background and discussion sections of their report. In the discussion the researchers specifically considered potential cost savings of only using PP-CSF when empirical evidence demonstrated its clinical benefit.
- The reviewers asked whether the high baseline PP-CSF prescribing rates could have been affected by insurance coverage and specifically whether prior authorization for insurance coverage was necessary before the drug could be used. The researchers stated they did not track preauthorization requirements but they would assume that preauthorization was necessary given the high cost of the PP-CSF drug. The researchers agreed that high adherence to PP-CSF prescribing recommendations at baseline might have been affected by insurance companies’ growing stringency regarding requirements for preauthorization.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results