Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
More to Explore...
PROSPERO RecordID: 186537
Related PCORI-Funded Studies
Results of This Project
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 researchers for completing this individual patient data meta-analysis of stroke treatment studies designed to optimize selection of therapies to prevent recurrent stroke events. There were no significant concerns.
- The reviewers did ask why the researchers established a score of 7 to delineate high and low probability of the reason for a stroke on the Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE) score. The researchers explained that 7 was the median score in the original database of patients, although they acknowledged that RoPE scores for patients in randomized clinical trials were lower than 7. The researchers explained that patients with RoPE scores below 7 showed less evident benefit from antithrombotic therapy.
- The reviewers asked why the researchers did not explore treatment response heterogeneity based on different antithrombotic treatments. The researchers explained that most of the studies they exampled did not randomize patients to specific antithrombotic therapies, resulting in the potential for unmeasured confounding in a treatment response heterogeneity analysis.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
- Has Results