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

PubMed2005

Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine which manuscript reviewer characteristics are most strongly associated with reviewer performance as judged by editors of the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: At the AJR, manuscript reviews are rated by the journal editors on a subjective scale from 1 (lowest) to 4, on the basis of the value, thoroughness, and punctuality of the critique. We obtained all scores for AJR reviewers and determined the average score for each reviewer. We also sent a questionnaire to 989 reviewers requesting specific information regarding the age, sex, radiology subspecialty, number of years serving as a reviewer, academic rank, and practice type of the reviewer. The demographic profiles were correlated with the average quality score for each reviewer. Statistical analysis included correlation analysis and analysis of variance modeling. Reviewer quality scores were also correlated with the scoring of individual reviews and ultimate disposition of 196 manuscripts sent to the AJR during the same period. RESULTS: Responses to the questionnaire were obtained from 821 reviewers (83.0%), for whom quality scores were available for 714 (87.0%). Correlation analysis shows that the quality score of reviewers strongly correlated with younger age (p = 0.001). A statistically significant correlation between quality score and practice type was seen (p = 0.008), with reviewers from academic institutions receiving higher scores. No significant correlation was found between quality score and sex (p = 0.72), years of reviewing (p = 0.26), academic rank (p = 0.10), or the ultimate disposition of the manuscript (p = 0.40). The quality score of the reviewers showed no variation by subspecialty (p = 0.99). CONCLUSION: The highest-rated AJR reviewers tended to be young and from academic institutions. The quality of peer review did not correlate with the sex, academic rank, or subspecialty of the reviewer.

Female↗

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↗

PubMed2004

Feedback from community pharmacy users on the contribution of community pharmacy to improving the public's health: a systematic review of the peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature 1990-2002.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review feedback from pharmacy users on their perceptions and experiences of health-related advice and services provided from community pharmacies. METHODS: The focus of the review was community pharmacy activities in relation to promoting health and well-being, preventing ill-health and maintaining health. Searches were conducted for peer-reviewed (international) and non-peer-reviewed (UK) research. Electronic databases searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts; hand searches of key journals and conference abstracts, key informants. Key informants in the UK were contacted to identify unpublished studies. The inclusion period was 1990 onwards. Data extraction and synthesis Data were abstracted into a matrix by one author with a sample checked by a second. The Health Development Agency's Evidence Base 2000 standards and the evidence categories used by the Department of Health in the National Service Frameworks were applied to each item. MAIN RESULTS: Seven peer reviewed papers and 13 non-peer reviewed reports were identified for inclusion in the review. Consumer usage of pharmacies is almost universal with prescription supplies and purchase of over the counter medicines predominating. Evidence shows that not only is usage low for general health advice, but that pharmacists are perceived as 'drugs experts' rather than experts on health and illness. Emergency hormonal contraception and head lice management schemes have been well received. There is a need to consider privacy and confidentiality surrounding advice giving. CONCLUSIONS: Users of community pharmacy-based health development initiatives express a high level of satisfaction. If community pharmacies are to be used to their full extent, then actions to extending the public's awareness and acceptance of the pharmacist's role in giving advice will be crucial. Further research will be needed to measure any change in premises development on the public's perception of the level of privacy in pharmacies.

Confidentiality↗

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↗

PubMed2004

Rapid review in cervical cytology: a retrospective review of cases detected on rapid review within a DGH cytology department and subsequent outcome.

We retrospectively reviewed smears detected by rapid review within a district general hospital (DGH) laboratory over a period of 33 months and the subsequent histological or cytological outcome. Sixty-three cases had adequate follow-up data: 32 subsequently had two negative smears and 31 had a histological abnormality on subsequent biopsy. Twenty were high-grade lesions (CIN2, CIN3 or a glandular lesion) and eight of these were preceded by a low-grade smear abnormality. We reviewed and compared the pattern and distribution of smear abnormalities in these 63 cases. Abnormalities were often present within few cells (76%, n = 48 with 50 abnormal cells or less) or in micro-biopsies (27%, n = 17). There was no statistical difference in the pattern and distribution of smear abnormality between the rapid review-detected smears with a biopsy-proven abnormality and those with negative follow-up smears. Overall, the positive predictive value for high-grade CIN detected by rapid review (75%) was within NHSCSP achievable standards targets. This review of rapid review-detected abnormalities and the biopsy and cytological follow-up reiterates the importance of the method in cervical screening.

Diagnostic Errors↗

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.↗

PubMed2005

Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.

AIMS: To explore the review process from the reviewers' perspective, including perceptions of the time taken to carry out a review, barriers to and facilitators of the review process, benefits of reviewing, opinions about blinded versus transparent reviews, how the process of reviewing might be made easier, and to assess reviewers' experience of, and training in, the peer review process. SUBJECTS: Reviewers for Medical Education invited to review over a 5-month period between 1st June and 31st October 2002 (n = 221). METHODS: Postal questionnaire accompanying a request to review a manuscript. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 64.7% (the response rate of those completing and returning a manuscript review and a questionnaire was 87%); 30% were first-time reviewers for Medical Education, although the majority (87%) reviewed for other journals. The average time spent on the current review was just over 3 hours (184.3 minutes, median 162 minutes, range 30-810 minutes), which was stated to be about the same time as usual for the majority. Only 14% of respondents had received formal training in reviewing, although 66% said they would like such training. A total of 79.5% said they would have liked to seek a colleague's opinion, and 90% wished to receive other reviewers' comments. A wide range of problems with the review process were encountered, and the main way in which it was felt it could be made easier was to make the process electronic. Nearly three quarters of respondents said they would be happy to sign their reviews. Acting as a reviewer was seen as a professional responsibility and as an opportunity for learning. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides useful insights into the process of review from the reviewer's perspective. Reviewers spend a substantial amount of time on each paper. Many referees feel their reviews would benefit if they had formal training in the review process, received feedback on their reviews, or were able to ask colleagues for opinions on the paper being reviewed. Most reviewers would be willing to sign their reviews and feel that the process should be transparent. These results may help inform discussions about how to better prepare peer reviewers for their job.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗

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↗

PubMed2006

Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous than other systematic reviews in dermatology.

BACKGROUND: The Cochrane collaboration aims to produce high-quality systematic reviews. It is not known whether the methods used in producing Cochrane Skin Group (CSG) reviews result in higher quality reviews than other systematic reviews in dermatology. OBJECTIVES: To determine how the methodological quality of dermatological CSG reviews published in The Cochrane Library and in peer-reviewed journals compare with non-Cochrane systematic reviews. METHODS: Two blinded investigators independently assessed review quality using the 10-item Oxman and Guyatt scale. RESULTS: Thirty-eight systematic reviews (17 Cochrane reviews published in The Cochrane Library, 11 Cochrane reviews published in peer-reviewed journals and 10 non-Cochrane reviews published in peer-reviewed journals) were examined. The Cochrane Library reviews included quality of life (11/17 vs. 1/10, P = 0.014) and adverse outcomes (14/17 vs. 2/10, P = 0.003) more often than non-Cochrane reviews published in peer-reviewed journals. Cochrane reviews published in both peer-reviewed journals and The Cochrane Library were more likely to include comprehensive search strategies (11/11 and 17/17 vs. 6/10, P-values = 0.04 and 0.01), take steps to minimize selection bias (11/11 and 16/17 vs. 3/10, P-values = 0.003 and 0.001) and appropriately assess the validity of all included trials (10/11 and 16/17 vs. 4/10, P-values = 0.04 and 0.007) than non-Cochrane reviews. Overall, Cochrane reviews published both in peer-reviewed journals and in The Cochrane Library were assigned higher quality scores by reviewers than non-Cochrane reviews (median = 6.0 and 6.5 vs. 4.5, P-values = 0.01 and 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The Cochrane Library systematic review methodology leads to higher quality reviews on dermatological topics.

Dermatology↗

PubMed2006

Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.

CONTEXT: Many journals give authors who submit papers the opportunity to suggest reviewers. Use of these reviewers varies by journal and little is known about the quality of the reviews they produce. OBJECTIVE: To compare author- and editor-suggested reviewers to investigate differences in review quality and recommendations for publication. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational study of original research papers sent for external review at 10 biomedical journals. Editors were instructed to make decisions about their choice of reviewers in their usual manner. Journal administrators then requested additional reviews from the author's list of suggestions according to a strict protocol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Review quality using the Review Quality Instrument and the proportion of reviewers recommending acceptance (including minor revision), revision, or rejection. RESULTS: There were 788 reviews for 329 manuscripts. Review quality (mean difference in Review Quality Instrument score, -0.05; P = .27) did not differ significantly between author- and editor-suggested reviewers. The author-suggested reviewers were more likely to recommend acceptance (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.66) or revise (odds ratio, 2.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-4.97). This difference was larger in the open reviews of BMJ than among the blinded reviews of other journals for acceptance (P = .02). Where author- and editor-suggested reviewers differed in their recommendations, the final editorial decision to accept or reject a study was evenly balanced (50.9% of decisions consistent with the preferences of the author-suggested reviewers). CONCLUSIONS: Author- and editor-suggested reviewers did not differ in the quality of their reviews, but author-suggested reviewers tended to make more favorable recommendations for publication. Editors can be confident that reviewers suggested by authors will complete adequate reviews of manuscripts, but should be cautious about relying on their recommendations for publication.

Authorship↗

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↗