Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The validity of radiology peer review requires an unbiased assessment of studies in an environment that values the process. We assessed radiologists' behavior reviewing colleagues' reports. We hypothesized that when a radiologist receives a discrepant peer review, he is more likely to submit a discrepant review about another radiologist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the anonymous peer review submissions of 13 neuroradiologists in semimonthly blocks of time from 2016 to 2018. We defined a discrepant review as any one of the following: 1) detection miss, clinically significant; 2) detection miss, clinically not significant; 3) interpretation miss, clinically significant; or 4) interpretation miss, clinically not significant. We used random-effects Poisson regression analysis to determine whether a neuroradiologist was more likely to submit a discrepant report during the semimonthly block in which he or she received one versus the semimonthly block thereafter. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-eight discrepant peer review reports were submitted; 161 were submitted in the same semimonthly block of receipt of a discrepant report and 325 were not. Receiving a discrepant report had a positive effect on submitting discrepant reports: an expected relative increase of 14% (95% CI, 8%-21%). Notably, receiving a clinically not significant discrepant report (coefficient 0.13; 95% CI, 0.05- 0.22) significantly and positively correlated with submitting a discrepant report within the same time block, but this was not true of clinically significant reports. CONCLUSIONS: The receipt of a clinically not significant discrepant report leads to a greater likelihood of submitting a discrepant report. The motivation for such an increase should be explored for potential bias.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 19-24 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | American Journal of Neuroradiology |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jan 1 2019 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
- Clinical Neurology
Cite this
Bias in neuroradiology peer review : Impact of a “ding” on “dinging” others. / Charkhchi, P.; Wang, B.; Caffo, Brian S; Yousem, David Mark.
In: American Journal of Neuroradiology, Vol. 40, No. 1, 01.01.2019, p. 19-24.Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Bias in neuroradiology peer review
T2 - Impact of a “ding” on “dinging” others
AU - Charkhchi, P.
AU - Wang, B.
AU - Caffo, Brian S
AU - Yousem, David Mark
PY - 2019/1/1
Y1 - 2019/1/1
N2 - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The validity of radiology peer review requires an unbiased assessment of studies in an environment that values the process. We assessed radiologists' behavior reviewing colleagues' reports. We hypothesized that when a radiologist receives a discrepant peer review, he is more likely to submit a discrepant review about another radiologist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the anonymous peer review submissions of 13 neuroradiologists in semimonthly blocks of time from 2016 to 2018. We defined a discrepant review as any one of the following: 1) detection miss, clinically significant; 2) detection miss, clinically not significant; 3) interpretation miss, clinically significant; or 4) interpretation miss, clinically not significant. We used random-effects Poisson regression analysis to determine whether a neuroradiologist was more likely to submit a discrepant report during the semimonthly block in which he or she received one versus the semimonthly block thereafter. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-eight discrepant peer review reports were submitted; 161 were submitted in the same semimonthly block of receipt of a discrepant report and 325 were not. Receiving a discrepant report had a positive effect on submitting discrepant reports: an expected relative increase of 14% (95% CI, 8%-21%). Notably, receiving a clinically not significant discrepant report (coefficient 0.13; 95% CI, 0.05- 0.22) significantly and positively correlated with submitting a discrepant report within the same time block, but this was not true of clinically significant reports. CONCLUSIONS: The receipt of a clinically not significant discrepant report leads to a greater likelihood of submitting a discrepant report. The motivation for such an increase should be explored for potential bias.
AB - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The validity of radiology peer review requires an unbiased assessment of studies in an environment that values the process. We assessed radiologists' behavior reviewing colleagues' reports. We hypothesized that when a radiologist receives a discrepant peer review, he is more likely to submit a discrepant review about another radiologist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the anonymous peer review submissions of 13 neuroradiologists in semimonthly blocks of time from 2016 to 2018. We defined a discrepant review as any one of the following: 1) detection miss, clinically significant; 2) detection miss, clinically not significant; 3) interpretation miss, clinically significant; or 4) interpretation miss, clinically not significant. We used random-effects Poisson regression analysis to determine whether a neuroradiologist was more likely to submit a discrepant report during the semimonthly block in which he or she received one versus the semimonthly block thereafter. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-eight discrepant peer review reports were submitted; 161 were submitted in the same semimonthly block of receipt of a discrepant report and 325 were not. Receiving a discrepant report had a positive effect on submitting discrepant reports: an expected relative increase of 14% (95% CI, 8%-21%). Notably, receiving a clinically not significant discrepant report (coefficient 0.13; 95% CI, 0.05- 0.22) significantly and positively correlated with submitting a discrepant report within the same time block, but this was not true of clinically significant reports. CONCLUSIONS: The receipt of a clinically not significant discrepant report leads to a greater likelihood of submitting a discrepant report. The motivation for such an increase should be explored for potential bias.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059904139&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85059904139&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3174/ajnr.A5908
DO - 10.3174/ajnr.A5908
M3 - Review article
C2 - 30523137
AN - SCOPUS:85059904139
VL - 40
SP - 19
EP - 24
JO - American Journal of Neuroradiology
JF - American Journal of Neuroradiology
SN - 0195-6108
IS - 1
ER -