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 additional information on changes made to the study to reduce the scope of the work at six months and wanted more information on the factors that contributed to changes in the study objectives. The researchers added more detail about their difficulties in recruiting the target number of participants, leading to a substantial reduction in the study’s sample size. Therefore, although the study objectives did not change per se, the study itself was reduced in scope to the extent that it could be considered a pilot study or feasibility trial rather than a comparative effectiveness study.
  • The reviewers questioned the reasonability of conducting a large effectiveness study on acupressure in this population given the null results in this study. The researchers expanded their discussion in the report on what the goals would be for future trials. They admitted that any future definitive effectiveness study would need multiple sites to successfully enroll the patients they needed. The researchers said they considered several factors in any plans for a future effectiveness trial, including families’ enthusiasm to use integrative therapy, parents’ capacity to complete questionnaires while their children were receiving treatment for cancer, and availability of a sufficient patient population.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

E. Anne Lown, DPH
University of California San Francisco
$1,519,518
10.25302/08.2021.CER.160234557
Acupressure Intervention to Reduce Treatment-Related Symptoms in Children with Cancer

Key Dates

December 2016
July 2021
2016
2021

Study Registration Information

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
Populations Populations PCORI is interested in research that seeks to better understand how different clinical and health system options work for different people. These populations are frequently studied in our portfolio or identified as being of interest by our stakeholders. 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: May 10, 2022