Results Summary and Professional Abstract
|This project's final research report is expected to be available by September 2020.|
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 other methods would be useful to examine via simulations, and that the researchers should present these other methods or discuss them at the end of the report. The researchers responded that their principal comparison approaches focused on the Cox (proportional hazards) regression model because it is heavily used and therefore, the report would be of more interest to readers. The reviewers pointed out that the researchers mentioned less commonly used methods, including the accelerated failure time model. In response to reviewer comments, the researchers added references to this model in their discussion section.
- For the simulation results, the reviewers suggested adding information about root mean square errors (RMSE), which is a way of comparing predicted values against observed values. The researchers acknowledged that they did not report RMSEs for all simulations because they considered bias to be a primary concern, with statistical precision being secondary. The researchers did add appendix tables with results that provided RMSE for the simulations.
- The reviewers asked for additional details to allow readers to replicate simulation results after one reviewer failed to replicate the results. The researchers explained that they believed the simulations the reviewer performed did not work because the reviewer did not run analyses for the Cox model. The researchers noted that their code is freely available on GitHub and use of this code should allow for perfectly reproduced simulations.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
The Conflict of Interest Disclosures for this project will be posted here soon.