P Charkhchi1, B Wang2, B Caffo2, D M Yousem3. 1. From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Science (P.C., D.M.Y.), Division of Neuroradiology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Department of Biostatistics (B.W., B.C.), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. From the Department of Radiology and Radiological Science (P.C., D.M.Y.), Division of Neuroradiology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland dyousem1@jhu.edu.
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.
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.
Authors: Andrew K Moriarity; C Matthew Hawkins; J Raymond Geis; Keith J Dreyer; Aaron P Kamer; Paras Khandheria; Jose Morey; James Whitfill; Richard H Wiggins; Jason N Itri Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Hani Abujudeh; Robert S Pyatt; Michael A Bruno; Alison L Chetlen; David Buck; Susan K Hobbs; Christopher Roth; Charles Truwit; Rajan Agarwal; Scott T O Kennedy; Lucille Glenn Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2014-05-16 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: David B Larson; Lane F Donnelly; Daniel J Podberesky; Arnold C Merrow; Richard E Sharpe; Jonathan B Kruskal Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Maria Alonso Luaces; Aaron R Alvarado; Jennifer Keeton; Karin Chang; Jeff Novorr; Timothy Murrell; Megha Ramaswamy Journal: J Best Pract Health Prof Divers Date: 2019