Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

More to Explore...

Journal Citations (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.

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 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

Project Information

Risa Nakase-Richardson, PhD, FACRM, FNAN
Tampa VA Research and Education Foundation
$2,618,209
10.25302/09.2021.CER.151133005
Comparison of Sleep Apnea Assessment Strategies to Maximize TBI Rehabilitation Participation and Outcome

Key Dates

July 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: April 13, 2022