Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

Stories and Videos

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 noted that the original report submission included an appendix describing a scoping review of qualitative research on patients’ experiences with imaging testing. The reviewers expressed concern that this scoping review was not well integrated into the rest of the study, and they requested a number of clarifications. The researchers removed the detailed description of the scoping review since it informed the PCORI study but was not part of the original research plan. They incorporated a summary of the results in the discussion section for aim 1, which focused on patients’ experiences with imaging tests and patient-centered outcomes.
  • The reviewers commented on the overlap among some of the patient-centered outcome domains that were defined over the course of the study. They asked whether the domains should be redefined or whether the report should address the overlap more directly. The researchers said they felt secure in their definition of domains but acknowledged the overlap and their difficulties in establishing a consistent definition to the test burden domain.
  • The reviewers remarked that since the study focused on imaging tests, where the clinicians who order the tests are generally not involved in performing them and often have a limited role in interpreting them, the results of this study may not apply to other types of diagnostic tests. The researchers acknowledged that the study focused on imaging tests, but said they tend to believe that the patient-centered outcomes they proposed will apply to many types of tests to various degrees although further work will be needed to explore this. The researchers explained that they focused on imagining tests because those are some of the most important tests in health care because of their clinical value, frequency of use, and cost.
  • The reviewers suggested that the study made a somewhat artificial distinction between consequences of testing due to the test itself versus due to changes the test led to in clinical management. The researchers said this distinction is an area of active discussion and debate in this field, and they considered the issue carefully. They said they consulted with other experts and with their project stakeholders on this issue. The researchers said they chose to focus on the more immediate and direct outcomes from diagnostic tests because they believed that incorporating later effects would dilute understanding about immediate testing outcomes, which was the area they wanted to understand better.
  • The reviewers said more work is necessary to evaluate whether the findings from this study apply to an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population, and they wondered how the findings from this work will be disseminated to different stakeholder groups. The researchers agreed that patient-centered outcomes may vary among different sociodemographic groups and said they plan to disseminate their findings, which will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, by engaging with professional groups, patient and consumer groups, industry, and other stakeholders.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Matthew Thompson, MBChB, MPH, DPhil
University of Washington
$1,099,534
10.25302/04.2021.ME.150329245
Patient-Centered Research for Standards of Outcomes in Diagnostic Tests (PROD)

Key Dates

September 2015
September 2020
2015
2020

Study Registration Information

Tags

Has Results
Award Type
State State The state where the project originates, or where the primary institution or organization is located. View Glossary
Last updated: March 4, 2022