Results Summary and Professional Abstract
|This project's final research report is expected to be available by May 2022.|
Results of This Project
Journal Articles (Correction)
*Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 Nov 24:S0003-9993(20)31227-2. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2020.11.001. Epub ahead of print. Erratum for: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 Sep;101(9):1497-1508. PMID: 33246553.
Screening Patients with Traumatic Brain Injuries for Sleep Apnea
Risa Richardson, PhD, explains the importance of her PCORI-funded project that compares two methods to screen for sleep apnea among patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) early in their recovery.
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 researchers referred to their study as a clinical trial, but the study was actually a prospective observational cohort study. The reviewers acknowledged that the technical definition of clinical trial might include this study but that most researchers would not classify it as a clinical trial. The researchers therefore replaced instances of clinical trial in the report with cohort study.
- Reviewers asked how the researchers accounted for missing Glasgow Coma Scale scores for participants who were “chemically paralyzed, sedated, or intubated.” The researchers stated that they imputed scores on the Glasgow Coma Scale by replacing the missing scale scores the same way that previous researchers had done. The researchers also stated that when the Glasgow Coma Scale scores were missing for all other reasons, those participants’ data were excluded from sensitivity analyses.
- Reviewers questioned why the researchers reported their results for cohorts with Apnea-Hypopnea Index scores greater than or equal to 5, as well as greater than or equal to 15, when the lower scores typically did not warrant treatment. The researchers explained that they were following common practices in the field by reporting on both cutoff scores. In addition, they added information in the discussion section referencing evidence that even mild obstructive sleep apnea had cardiovascular consequences for individuals receiving inpatient rehabilitation for a traumatic brain injury.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
The COI disclosure form for this project will be posted here soon.
Other Clinical Interventions