SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “REVIEW”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2002

The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: a content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: In 1997, Annals of Emergency Medicine initiated a protocol by which every original research article, in addition to each regular review, was concurrently evaluated by 1 of 2 methodology and statistical reviewers. We characterized and contrasted comments made by the methodology and regular peer reviewers. METHODS: After pilot testing, interrater reliability assessment, and revision, we finalized a 99-item taxonomy of reviewer comments organized in 8 categories. Two authors, uninvolved in the writing of reviews, classified each comment from a random sample of methodology reviews from 1999. For 30 of these reviews (15 for each methodology reviewer), the 2 authors also scored all (range 2 to 5) regular reviews. RESULTS: Sixty-five reviews by methodologist A, 60 by methodologist B, and 68 by regular reviewers were analyzed. Comments by methodologist A most frequently concerned the presentation of results (33% of all comments) and methods (17%). Methodologist B commented most frequently on presentation of results (28%) and statistical methods (16%). Regular reviewers most frequently made non-methodology/statistical comments (45%) and comments on presentation of results (18%). Of note, comments made by methodology and regular reviewers about methods issues were often contradictory. CONCLUSION: The distributions of comments made by the 2 methodology and statistical reviewers were similar, although reviewer A emphasized presentation and reviewer B stressed statistical issues. The regular reviewers (most of whom were unaware that a dedicated methodology and statistical reviewer would be reviewing the article) paid much less attention to methodology issues. The 2 dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers created reviews that were similarly focused and emphasized methodology issues that were distinct from the issues raised by regular reviewers.

Peer Review, Research↗

PubMed1999

Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.

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.

Decision Making↗

PubMed2002

Radiosurgery for residual or recurrent nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma.

OBJECT: Nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas comprise approximately 30% of all pituitary tumors. The purpose of this retrospective study is to evaluate the efficacy and role of gamma knife radiosurgery (GKS) in the management of residual or recurrent nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas. METHODS: A review was conducted of the data obtained in 42 patients who underwent adjuvant GKS at the University of Pittsburgh between 1987 and 2001. Prior treatments included transsphenoidal resection, craniotomy and resection, or conventional radiotherapy. Endocrinological, ophthalmological, and radiological responses were evaluated. The duration of follow-up review varied from 6 to 102 months (mean 31.2 months). Fifteen patients were observed for more than 40 months. The mean radiation dose to the tumor margin was 16 Gy. Conformal radiosurgery planning was used to restrict the dose to the optic nerve and chiasm. Tumor control after GKS was achieved in 100% of patients with microadenomas and 97% of patients with macroadenomas. Gamma knife radiosurgery was equally effective in controlling adenomas with cavernous sinus invasion and suprasellar extension. No patient developed a new endocrinological deficiency following GKS. One patient's tumor enlarged with an associated decline in visual function. Another patient experienced a deterioration of visual fields despite a decrease in tumor size. CONCLUSIONS: Gamma knife radiosurgery can achieve tumor control in virtually all residual or recurrent nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas. Dose sparing facilitates tumor management even when the adenoma is close to the optic apparatus or invades the cavernous sinus.

Adenoma↗

PubMed1999

Quality-assessed reviews of health care interventions and the database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness (DARE). NHS CRD Review, Dissemination, and Information Teams.

OBJECTIVES: Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) (http:@www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/) at the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination provides a unique international resource of structured summaries of quality-assessed reviews of health care interventions. These reviews have been identified from searches of electronic databases and by hand-searching journals. This paper describes and summarizes the DARE database, including the topic areas covered and the review methods used. METHODS: The first 480 structured abstracts on the DARE database were summarized. Data were extracted from each database field and coded for analysis. RESULTS: Most of the systematic reviews investigated the effectiveness of treatments: 54% investigated the effectiveness of medical therapies, and 10% assessed surgical interventions. Around two-thirds used meta-analytic methods to combine primary studies. The quality of the reviews was variable, with just over half of the reviews (52%, n = 251) having systematically assessed the validity of the included primary studies. Narrative reviews were more likely than meta-analyses to reach negative conclusions (42% vs. 25%, p = .0001). The 21 reviews that reported drug company funding were more likely to reach positive conclusions (81% vs. 66%, p = .15). CONCLUSION: The DARE database is a valuable source of quality-assessed systematic reviews, and is free and easily accessible. It provides a valuable online resource to help in filtering out poorer quality reviews when assessing the effectiveness of health technologies.

Abstracting and Indexing↗

PubMed1998

Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a fictitious manuscript into which purposeful errors were placed could be used as an instrument to evaluate peer reviewer performance. METHODS: An instrument for reviewer evaluation was created in the form of a fictitious manuscript into which deliberate errors were placed in order to develop an approach for the analysis of peer reviewer performance. The manuscript described a double-blind, placebo control study purportedly demonstrating that intravenous propranolol reduced the pain of acute migraine headache. There were 10 major and 13 minor errors placed in the manuscript. The work was distributed to all reviewers of Annals of Emergency Medicine for review. RESULTS: The manuscript was sent to 262 reviewers; 203 (78%) reviews were returned. One-hundred ninety-nine reviewers recommended a disposition for the manuscript: 15 recommended acceptance, 117 rejection, and 67 revision. The 15 who recommended acceptance identified 17.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.3% to 23.4%) of the major and 11.8% (CI 7.3% to 16.3%) of the minor errors. The 117 who recommended rejection identified 39.1 % (CI 36.3% to 41.9%) of the major and 25.2% (CI 23.0% to 27.4%) of the minor errors. The 67 who recommended revision identified 29.6% (CI 26.1% to 33.1%) of the major and 22.0% (CI 19.3% to 24.8%) of the minor errors. The number of errors identified differed significantly across recommended disposition. Sixty-eight percent of the reviewers did not realize that the conclusions of the work were not supported by the results. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the use of a preconceived manuscript into which purposeful errors are placed may be a viable approach to evaluate reviewer performance. Peer reviewers in this study failed to identify two thirds of the major errors in such a manuscript.

Confidence Intervals↗

PubMed2001

Reviewing the review process: towards good practice in the peer review of manuscripts submitted to nursing journals.

Publishing in peer reviewed journals is an essential activity for nurses working in higher education. This paper offers some reflections on the processes involve in the reviewing of articles submitted for publication, and explores some ways in which this system may be improved. All journals operate some kind of review process. This can range from, at one end, the editor making decisions about the suitability for publication of a submitted paper to, at the other end, papers being blind-reviewed by two (or sometimes more) external referees. This paper notes that there appears to be little or no consistency amongst the various nursing journals with respect to reviewing processes. Suggestions put forward in this article for consideration include: the standardisation of peer review systems across journals; the construction of guidelines for referees which caution against ad hominem attacks on authors; and the introduction of 'open' reviewing.

Humans↗

PubMed1998

Protection of human subjects: categories of research that may be reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) through an expedited review procedure--FDA. Notice.

On November 10, 1997, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in consultation with the Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR) at the National Institutes of Health, requested written comments relating to the proposed republication of the list that identifies certain research activities involving human subjects that may be reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) through the expedited review procedure authorized in 21 CFR 56.110. The comment period closed on March 10, 1998. FDA and OPRR received a combined total of 108 comments. After a review of the comments, FDA and OPRR are now simultaneously publishing identical revised lists of categories of research activities that may be reviewed by the IRB through the expedited review procedure.

Human Experimentation↗

PubMed1984

Medicare and Medicaid programs; utilization and quality control peer review organization (PRO); assumption of responsibilities and Medicare review functions and coordination of Medicaid with peer review organization--HCFA. Proposed rule.

This proposal would implement portions of the Peer Review Improvement Act of 1982 (Title I, Subtitle C of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248) and the Social Security Act Amendments of 1983 (Pub. L 98-21) by establishing the review functions to be performed by a Utilization and Quality Control Peer Review Organization (PRO). The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act amended TEFRA by requiring that effective October 1, 1983, hospitals receiving payment under the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) are required to maintain an agreement with a PRO if there is one for the area. Effective October 1, 1984, hospitals are required to have an agreement with a PRO in order to receive Medicare payments. These proposed regulations outline the relationships among PROs, Medicare fiscal intermediaries and carriers, providers, practitioners, and beneficiaries upon the PRO's assumption of conduct of review for those hospitals under PPS and for all other facilities. The proposal would also describe the relationship between PROs and State Medicaid agencies that contract with PROs to perform review.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.↗

PubMedDate not supplied

A trial of structured implicit review of randomly selected peer review organization cases.

OBJECTIVE: In order to learn more about peer review's acceptability, efficiency, and reliability, we performed structured implicit review with and without use of a structured case review form on a random selection of peer review organization cases. METHODS: We compared the results between methods and with previously obtained review results. Twenty-five charts with physician review completed during the Health Care Financing Administration's Third Scope of Work were randomly selected for rereview. Eight physician advisors, none of whom had seen any of these charts previously, were divided into two groups. Both groups received identical formal instruction in the structured implicit review method. Half of the physicians used a structured review form when performing chart review. The other half did not use this form but completed their reviews using the previously used reporting form. Participating physicians were instructed in the structured review method as described by Rand Corporation. The review process was examined regarding acceptability and efficiency. Review results were analyzed for reliability regarding identification of adverse and potential adverse effects and identification of the source of quality concerns. RESULTS: Instructions regarding structured implicit review methods were understood easily and accepted by physician advisors. Use of the structured review form was less efficient, averaging 50% longer per review. There was no difference in the rate at which adverse events were detected. Potentially serious adverse events were found less often using structured review than in the original review. There was greater agreement among reviewers using the structured form than among those using the historic worksheet, but structured review using the Rand form identified fewer potentially significant adverse events than did the reviewers using the historic worksheets. CONCLUSIONS: Application of structured implicit review methods is clearly feasible for peer review organization case review. Use of a simple worksheet was more time efficient than use of a highly structured form. There was not only less variation in review results but also identification of fewer potentially significant adverse events when the highly structured form was used. Teaching the structured approach to chart review may be more important to obtaining good results than using a structured review form.

Efficiency, Organizational↗

PubMed1998

What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?

CONTEXT: Selecting peer reviewers who will provide high-quality reviews is a central task of editors of biomedical journals. OBJECTIVES: To determine the characteristics of reviewers for a general medical journal who produce high-quality reviews and to describe the characteristics of a good review, particularly in terms of the time spent reviewing and turnaround time. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Surveys of reviewers of the 420 manuscripts submitted to BMJ between January and June 1997. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Review quality was assessed independently by 2 editors and by the corresponding author using a newly developed 7-item review quality instrument. RESULTS: Of the 420 manuscripts, 345 (82%) had 2 reviews completed, for a total of 690 reviews. Authors' assessments of review quality were available for 507 reviews. The characteristics of reviewers had little association with the quality of the reviews they produced (explaining only 8% of the variation), regardless of whether editors or authors defined the quality of the review. In a logistic regression analysis, the only significant factor associated with higher-quality ratings by both editors and authors was reviewers trained in epidemiology or statistics. Younger age also was an independent predictor for editors' quality assessments, while reviews performed by reviewers who were members of an editorial board were rated of poorer quality by authors. Review quality increased with time spent on a review, up to 3 hours but not beyond. CONCLUSIONS: The characteristics of reviewers we studied did not identify those who performed high-quality reviews. Reviewers might be advised that spending longer than 3 hours on a review on average did not appear to increase review quality as rated by editors and authors.

Data Collection↗

PubMed2003

Converting systematic reviews to Cochrane format: a cross-sectional survey of Australian authors of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing reputation and subject coverage of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, many systematic reviews continue to be published solely in paper-based health care journals. This study was designed to determine why authors choose to publish their systematic reviews outside of the Cochrane Collaboration and if they might be interested in converting their reviews to Cochrane format for publication in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of Australian primary authors of systematic reviews not published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews identified from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness. RESULTS: We identified 88 systematic reviews from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness with an Australian as the primary author. We surveyed 52 authors for whom valid contact information was available. The response rate was 88 per cent (46/52). Ten authors replied without completing the survey, leaving 36 valid surveys for analysis. The most frequently cited reasons for not undertaking a Cochrane review were: lack of time (78%), the need to undergo specific Cochrane training (46%), unwillingness to update reviews (36%), difficulties with the Cochrane process (26%) and the review topic already registered with the Cochrane Collaboration (21%). (Percentages based on completed responses to individual questions.) Nearly half the respondents would consider converting their review to Cochrane format. Dedicated time emerged as the most important factor in facilitating the potential conversion process. Other factors included navigating the Cochrane system, assistance with updating and financial support. Eighty-six per cent were willing to have their review converted to Cochrane format by another author. CONCLUSION: Time required to complete a Cochrane review and the need for specific training are the primary reasons why some authors publish systematic reviews outside of the Cochrane Collaboration. Encouragingly, almost half of the authors would consider converting their review to Cochrane format. Based on the current number of reviews in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, this could result in more than 700 additional Cochrane reviews. Ways of supporting these authors and how to provide dedicated time to convert systematic reviews needs further consideration.

Attitude↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?

BACKGROUND: The quality of peer reviewing in developing countries is thought to be poor. To examine whether this was so, we compared the performance of Indian and non-Indian reviewers who were sent original and review articles submitted to The National Medical Journal of India. We also tested whether informing reviewers that their comments would be exchanged improved the quality of their reviews. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, blinded study, we sent 100 manuscripts to pairs of peer reviewers (Indian and non-Indian) of which 78 pairs of completed replies were available for analysis. Thirty-eight pairs of reviews were exchanged and 40 were not. The quality of the reviews was assessed by two editors who were unaware of the reviewers' nationality and whether they had been told that their reviews would be exchanged. The quality of the reviews was scored out of 100 (based on a predesigned evaluation proforma). We also measured the time taken to return a manuscript. RESULTS: Overall, non-Indian reviewers scored higher than Indians (mean scores non-Indians first, 56.7 v. 48.6, p < 0.001), especially those in the non-exchanged group (58.4 v. 47.3, p < 0.001) but not the exchanged group (54.8 v. 50.0, p < 0.06). Being informed that reviews would be exchanged did not affect the quality of reviews by non-Indians (54.8 exchanged v. 58.4 non-exchanged) or of reviews by Indians (50.0 exchanged v. 47.3 non-exchanged). The editors' assessment of the reviewers matched well (r = 0.59, p < 0.001). Non-Indians took the same amount of time as Indians to return their reviews, although the postage time was at least eight days longer. CONCLUSIONS: We found that non-Indian peer reviewers were better than Indians and informing them that their views would be exchanged did not seem to affect the quality of their reviews. We suggest that Indian editors should also use non-Indian reviewers and start training programmes to improve the quality of peer reviews in India.

Humans↗

PubMed2002

A randomized survey of the preference of gastroenterologists for a Cochrane review versus a traditional narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians often rely on review material rather than analysis of primary research to guide therapy. Systematic reviews use methods to insure thoroughness and to minimize bias, but many clinicians are not familiar with systematic reviews and continue to rely on narrative reviews. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a traditional narrative review or a systematic review is perceived to be more useful. METHODS: A clinical scenario (patient with chronic Crohn's disease considered for azathioprine therapy) was circulated to gastroenterologists, along with a narrative review of therapy (including azathioprine) for inflammatory bowel disease written by an acknowledged expert, or with a systematic Cochrane review of the use of azathioprine for this disease. Whether knowledge of authorship and journal source influences the perception of usefulness of a narrative review was investigated. RESULTS: The Cochrane review was rated significantly more highly than the narrative review on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (21.3 mm; 95% CI 14.5 to 28 mm). The proportion of respondents who considered the review to be a useful guide was also higher in the group that received the Cochrane review (91%) than in the group that received the narrative review, with author and journal concealed (62%) or identified (70%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Ratings from the two groups that received the narrative review were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The focused systematic review was perceived to be more useful than a traditional broad narrative review as a guide to making a decision concerning the use of specific therapy. The possible strengths of systematic reviews should be more fully investigated. If there is additional evidence supporting their greater value to clinicians, they should be made more widely available to clinicians and their strengths should be publicized.

Aged↗

PubMed2002

Comparison of review articles published in peer-reviewed and throwaway journals.

CONTEXT: To compare the quality, presentation, readability, and clinical relevance of review articles published in peer-reviewed and "throwaway" journals. METHODS: We reviewed articles that focused on the diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition published between January 1 and December 31, 1998, in the 5 leading peer-reviewed general medical journals and high-circulation throwaway journals. Reviewers independently assessed the methodologic and reporting quality, and evaluated each article's presentation and readability. Clinical relevance was evaluated independently by 6 physicians. RESULTS: Of the 394 articles in our sample, 16 (4.1%) were peer-reviewed systematic reviews, 135 (34.3%) were peer-reviewed nonsystematic reviews, and 243 (61.7%) were nonsystematic reviews published in throwaway journals. The mean (SD) quality scores were highest for peer-reviewed articles (0.94 [0.09] for systematic reviews and 0.30 [0.19] for nonsystematic reviews) compared with throwaway journal articles (0.23 [0.03], F(2,391) = 280.8, P<.001). Throwaway journal articles used more tables (P =.02), figures (P =.01), photographs (P<.001), color (P<.001), and larger font sizes (P<.001) compared with peer-reviewed articles. Readability scores were more often in the college or higher range for peer-reviewed journals compared with the throwaway journal articles (104 [77.0%] vs 156 [64.2%]; P =.01). Peer-reviewed article titles were judged less relevant to clinical practice than throwaway journal article titles (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although lower in methodologic and reporting quality, review articles published in throwaway journals have characteristics that appeal to physician readers.

Consumer Behavior↗

PubMed1993

The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the characteristics of good peer reviewers. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of data gathered during a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The Journal of General Internal Medicine. PARTICIPANTS: 226 reviewers of 131 consecutively submitted manuscripts of original research. 201 (91%) completed the review and submitted a curriculum vitae. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The quality of each review was judged on a scale from 1 to 5 by an editor who was blinded to the identity of the reviewer. Reviewer characteristics were taken from the curricula vitae. 86 of the 201 reviewers (43%) produced good reviews (a grade of 4 or 5). Using logistic regression, the authors found that when a reviewer was less than 40 years old, from a top academic institution, well known to the editor choosing the reviewer, and blinded to the identity of the manuscript's authors, the probability that he or she would produce a good review was 87%, whereas a reviewer without any of these characteristics had a 7% probability of producing a good review. Other characteristics that were significant only on bivariate analysis included previous clinical research training, additional postgraduate degrees, and more time spent on the review. There was a negative but statistically nonsignificant association between academic rank and review quality: 37% of full professors, 39% of associate professors, and 51% of assistant professors or fellows produced good reviews (p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Good peer reviewers for this journal tended to be young, from strong academic institutions, well known to the editors, and blinded to the identity of the manuscript's authors.

Cross-Sectional Studies↗

PubMed2000

Self-management education and regular practitioner review for adults with asthma.

BACKGROUND: A key component of many asthma management guidelines is the recommendation for patient education and regular medical review. A number of controlled trials have been conducted to measure the effectiveness of asthma education programmes. These programmes improve patient knowledge, but their impact on health outcomes is less well established. This review was conducted to examine the strength of evidence supporting Step 6 of the Australian Asthma Management Plan: "Educate and Review Regularly"; to test whether health outcomes are influenced by education and self-management programmes. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of asthma self-management programmes, when coupled with regular health practitioner review, on health outcomes in adults with asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of self-management education in adults over 16 years of age with asthma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted for confirmation. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five trials were included. Self-management education was compared with usual care in 22 studies. Self-management education reduced hospitalisations (odds ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 0.88); emergency room visits (odds ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval (0.57 to 0.90); unscheduled visits to the doctor (odds ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.82); days off work or school (odds ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 0. 79); and nocturnal asthma (odds ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.72). Measures of lung function were little changed. Self-management programmes that involved a written action plan showed a greater reduction in hospitalisation than those that did not (odds ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.68). People who managed their asthma by self-adjustment of their medications using an individualised written plan had better lung function than those whose medications were adjusted by a doctor. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Training in asthma self-management which involves self-monitoring by either peak expiratory flow or symptoms, coupled with regular medical review and a written action plan appears to improve health outcomes for adults with asthma. Training programmes which enable people to adjust their medication using a written action plan appear to be more effective than other forms of asthma self-management.

Adult↗

PubMed2001

A critical review of reviews on the treatment of chronic low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise the methodology of systematic reviews of conservative therapies for chronic nonspecific low back pain and to study the relation between the methodologic quality and other characteristics of these reviews. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Systematic reviews offer a concise summary of the evidence on treatment effectiveness, but flaws in their methodology can lead to invalid conclusions with serious implications for quality of patient care. METHODS: Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, and the Cochrane Library were conducted. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by two blinded authors using three inclusion criteria: 1) chronic nonspecific low back pain, 2) systematic review, and 3) conservative treatment intervention. Data were extracted from each review by three authors. RESULTS: The search strategy retrieved 1102 titles and abstracts; 109 met inclusion criteria. A review of the full text of these articles excluded an additional 73 articles. Data abstraction and methodologic assessment were conducted on 36 articles reviewing 19 discrete interventions. The average quality score was 4.1, ranging from 1 (low) to 7 (high). There was a trend for recent reviews to be of higher quality. Fifty-six percent of the reviews had positive conclusions, but they had lower quality scores compared with those that had negative or uncertain conclusions. There were 27 (73%) qualitative and 10 (27%) quantitative summaries of results. CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall quality of systematic reviews was satisfactory, the quality of the individual papers included in the reviews varied considerably. The reviews often provided contradictory evidence on the effectiveness of a wide range of commonly used conservative interventions for chronic nonspecific low back pain. These findings illustrate the pitfalls of systematic reviews where there are a number of low-quality trials and underscore the need for high-quality primary trials that will allow for more conclusive reviews.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2002

Author perception of peer review: impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction.

CONTEXT: To determine author perception of peer review and association between quality of review and author satisfaction. METHODS: Survey between May 1999 and October 2000 of 897 corresponding authors of manuscripts under consideration by the Annals of Emergency Medicine and had received final editorial decisions during the study period. A total of 576 authors (64%) returned the survey. Using a 5-point Likert scale, the survey assessed differences in satisfaction between authors whose manuscripts were accepted, reviewed and rejected, and rejected without full review. The association of author satisfaction with editor's assessment of review quality, publication decision, author sex, specialty, and publication experience were also assessed. RESULTS: Overall mean (SD) satisfaction score, indicated by agreement with "My experience with the review process will make me more likely to submit to Annals in the future," was 3.1 (1.0) and was significantly higher among authors of accepted papers (3.7 [0.9]) than among either group of rejected papers (rejected/reviewed, 2.8 [1.0]; rejected/no review, 3.0 [0.9]; P.05). Authors whose manuscripts were reviewed and rejected were the least satisfied with the time to decision (rejected/reviewed, 3.0 [1.2] vs accepted, 3.7 [1.0] and rejected/no review, 3.9 [0.9]; P<.05). Those whose papers were rejected without review were the least satisfied with the letter explaining the editorial decision (rejected/no review, 2.8 [1.2] vs accepted, 4.2 [0.7] and rejected/reviewed, 3.1 [1.2]; P<.05). Among respondents whose manuscripts underwent full review (accepted and rejected/reviewed), overall satisfaction was highly associated with acceptance of the manuscript for publication (odds ratio [OR], 6.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.43-10.91) but not with quality rating of reviews (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.84-1.90). CONCLUSION: Contributor satisfaction with peer review was modest. Authors of rejected manuscripts were dissatisfied with the time to decision and communication from the editor. Author satisfaction is associated with acceptance but not with review quality.

Authorship↗