Final Research Report
This project's final research report is expected to be available by September 2024.
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 questioned how the researchers established the treatment groups for analysis. In the study, the standard management (SM) and mobile stroke unit (MSU) interventions were delivered on alternate days or weeks so that each intervention condition would include the same number of patients. However, the report states that 35 people assigned to the MSU intervention actually received SM intervention. Therefore, these 35 people were included in the SM group for the primary analyses, but in the MSU group for sensitivity analyses. The researchers explained that sometimes on MSU weeks the mobile van was not available, so some people received standard care and were counted in the SM group to help with recruitment numbers. The researchers assured the reviewers that these group assignment changes did not create added bias in the analyses.
- The reviewers noted that the better stroke outcomes for the MSU group over the SM group might not be because treatment with an intravenously administered thrombolytic occurred sooner. Another reason for this difference between groups could be attributed to more accurate treatment administration by MSU personnel, who were specially trained in the procedure, than by the SM personnel, who handled all manner of medical emergencies. The researchers agreed that speed and accuracy were factors in the better outcomes for patients treated by the MSU than for patients in SM.
- The reviewers asked about the clusters created by the timed administration of MSU and SM because differences between the groups could be accounted for by weekly clusters for treatment. The reviewers recommended that the researchers consider adding a variable to account for clustering to their analyses to account for this possible effect, but the researchers explained that they did not have the week cluster information in their database so they could not conduct additional analyses. The researchers did add this concern to their study limitations.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
Patient / Caregiver Partners
- James McIngvale, CEO, Gallery Furniture
- Elizabeth McIngvale-Cegelski, PhD, Assistant Professor, Baylor University
- Debra Godbold
Other Stakeholder Partners
- Dr. David E. Persse, City of Houston, Emergency Medical Services Physician Director
- Laura Richardson, CEO, Frazer, Ltd.
- Has Results