Send to

Choose Destination
J Comp Eff Res. 2019 Oct;8(14):1239-1251. doi: 10.2217/cer-2019-0054. Epub 2019 Aug 22.

How different is research done by the Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute, and what difference does it make?

Author information

Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy and Economics (CHOICE), School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Real-world Evidence, Evidera, Inc., MD 20814, USA.
Luce Outcomes Research, WA 98245, USA.


Aim: To determine whether research funded by the Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is consistent with the original aims of Congress and unique among other major USA funders. Methods: We compared a sample of funded projects from PCORI, NIH (Phase IV) and agency for healthcare research and quality (AHRQ; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA]-based comparative effectiveness research funding) from 2014 to 2018 on number of outcomes/study, patient-centeredness of outcomes (those related to survival, function, symptoms and health-related quality of life) and other features that may characterize patient-centered research (e.g., whether conducted in a real-world setting) using PCORI portfolio data and Results: The mean number of outcomes in PCORI studies (≥9) appeared higher than NIH (≥3)/AHRQ (5.5); a higher percentage of outcomes/study were patient-centered: >85% PCORI versus 50% AHRQ and ≤30% NIH. The majority of PCORI studies (≥74%) were conducted in a real-world setting; this characteristic could not be identified for NIH/AHRQ studies. Conclusion: PCORI-funded studies appear to have unique aspects relative to NIH and AHRQ that are consistent with PCORI's aims of patient-centeredness.


AHRQ; NIH; PCORI; comparative effectiveness; interventional; observational; outcomes research; patient-centeredness; real-world evidence; research portfolio

Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Atypon
Loading ...
Support Center