PubMed · 9386465
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
C Witherford. 1997. Time for decision ..... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9386465/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect on peer review of asking reviewers to have their identity revealed to the authors of the paper. DESIGN: Randomised trial. Consecutive eligible papers were sent to two reviewers who were randomised to have their identity revealed to the authors or to remain anonymous. Editors and authors were blind to the intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The quality of the reviews was independently rated by two editors and the corresponding author using a validated instrument. Additional outcomes were the time taken to complete the review and the recommendation regarding publication. A questionnaire survey was undertaken of the authors of a cohort of manuscripts submitted for publication to find out their views on open peer review. RESULTS: Two editors' assessments were obtained for 113 out of 125 manuscripts, and the corresponding author's assessment was obtained for 105. Reviewers randomised to be asked to be identified were 12% (95% confidence interval 0.2% to 24%) more likely to decline to review than reviewers randomised to remain anonymous (35% v 23%). There was no significant difference in quality (scored on a scale of 1 to 5) between anonymous reviewers (3.06 (SD 0.72)) and identified reviewers (3.09 (0.68)) (P=0.68, 95% confidence interval for difference - 0.19 to 0.12), and no significant difference in the recommendation regarding publication or time taken to review the paper. The editors' quality score for reviews (3.05 (SD 0.70)) was significantly higher than that of authors (2.90 (0.87)) (P<0.005, 95%confidence interval for difference - 0.26 to - 0.03). Most authors were in favour of open peer review. CONCLUSIONS: Asking reviewers to consent to being identified to the author had no important effect on the quality of the review, the recommendation regarding publication, or the time taken to review, but it significantly increased the likelihood of reviewers declining to review.
OBJECTIVE: Using a personal computer-based teleradiology system, we compared accuracy, confidence, and diagnostic ability in the interpretation of digitized radiographs to determine if teleradiology-imported studies convey sufficient information to make relevant clinical decisions involving urology. Variables of diagnostic accuracy, confidence, image quality, interpretation, and the impact of clinical decisions made after viewing digitized radiographs were compared with those of original radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 956 radiographs that included 94 IV pyelograms, four voiding cystourethrograms, and two nephrostograms. The radiographs were digitized and transferred over an Ethernet network to a remote personal computer-based viewing station. The digitized images were viewed by urologists and graded according to confidence in making a diagnosis, image quality, diagnostic difficulty, clinical management based on the image itself, and brief patient history. The hard-copy radiographs were then interpreted immediately afterward, and diagnostic decisions were reassessed. All analog radiographs were reviewed by an attending radiologist. RESULTS: Ninety-seven percent of the decisions made from the digitized radiographs did not change after reviewing conventional radiographs of the same case. When comparing the variables of clinical confidence, quality of the film on the teleradiology system versus analog films, and diagnostic difficulty, we found no statistical difference (p > .05) between the two techniques. Overall accuracy in interpreting the digitized images on the teleradiology system was 88% by urologists compared with that of the attending radiologist's interpretation of the analog radiographs. However, urologists detected findings on five (5%) analog radiographs that had been previously unreported by the radiologist. CONCLUSION: Viewing radiographs transmitted to a personal computer-based viewing station is an appropriate means of reviewing films with sufficient quality on which to base clinical decisions. Our focus was whether decisions made after viewing the transmitted radiographs would change after viewing the hard-copy images of the same case. In 97% of the cases, the decision did not change. In those cases in which management was altered, recommendation of further imaging studies was the most common factor.
The randomized controlled trial (RCT) may have considerable limitations in clinical research. Lacking the possibility of blinding impairs the internal validity of the trials. The external validity is often impaired, as results of RCTs obtained in an ideal situation, may be difficult to generalize to a clinical routine situation. Pragmatic randomized trials move from ideal situations towards routine situations, and by modifying the design it is possible to reduce selection bias due to patient and physician preferences. Quasi-experimental studies have varying degrees of problems with internal validity but are necessary contributions to our knowledge of the effect of treatment in clinical routine situations. Limitations of the usefulness of RCTs as well as pragmatic and quasi-experimental studies in clinical research make it necessary to recognise that different methods complement one another. Research in development of RCTs and new methods in clinical research should be encouraged.