ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026
An observational study of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's switch from in-person to virtual research application review panels during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) reviews research applications using a process that includes preliminary review by primary reviewers, followed by panel discussion where primary reviewers and other reviewers on the panel (panelists) discuss and score the most competitive applications. PCORI switched from in-person to virtual panel discussions during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study compared reviewers' scores and perceptions of panel interactions for virtual and in-person review panels and assessed reviewers' perspectives about virtual panels. PCORI uniquely includes patients and other stakeholders as reviewers alongside scientists; thus, differences between reviewer types were also explored.
methodsThis observational study utilized repeated cross-sectional data from PCORI funding cycles before and after switching to virtual review, including reviewer score data and closed- and open-ended responses from reviewer surveys. The study team used linear and logistic regression to examine reviewer scores and quantitative survey responses and conducted thematic analysis of open-ended survey responses.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences between in-person and virtual panels in primary reviewers' post-discussion scores or the magnitude of score change from pre- to post-discussion. In contrast, panelists gave stronger post-discussion scores in virtual panels, and this difference between formats was greater for stakeholder reviewers compared to scientists. Reviewers' ratings of panel interactions appeared to be similar between formats. While reviewers noted challenges of virtual panels, including challenges related to discussion quality and social interactions, they also noted benefits, such as lack of travel.
conclusionsOverall, this study suggests that virtual and in-person review panels were largely comparable on reviewer scores and some key aspects of reviewer experiences in a multi-stakeholder review process. Despite having some challenges, virtual review processes may be a viable approach for funders during times of necessity and beyond. Practical considerations and recommendations for virtual panels are discussed.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.