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 lauded the strengths of this report and requested minor changes, focusing largely on the investigators providing more information on the similarities and differences of cohort and case-control observational research designs. The researchers added language to describe the similarities and differences in these two approaches, as well as provided previously published explanations of the theoretical background behind the approaches the researchers evaluated in this study.
  • The reviewers noted that there were demographic differences in patient characteristics between the cohort and case-control samples and wondered if these differences could lead to bias that would make the results of the cohort and case-control comparison different from results of similar analyses between either of these designs and a randomized trial design.  The researchers acknowledged that there were differences in prevalence of hypertension and use of antihypertensives between the cohort and case-control study design results. However, the researchers stated that they did not expect the same demographic factors to affect the comparison of these two study designs because previous meta-analyses have not demonstrated that these factors led to differences in other studies of antihypertensives and myocardial infarction.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Goodarz Danaei, MD, MS, DSc
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
$700,037
10.25302/07.2021.ME.160936748
Causal Analyses of Nested Case-Control Studies for Comparative Effectiveness Research

Key Dates

August 2017
March 2021
2017
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
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: March 4, 2022