Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
Research ArticlePractice Perspectives

Bias in Neuroradiology Peer Review: Impact of a “Ding” on “Dinging” Others

P. Charkhchi, B. Wang, B. Caffo and D.M. Yousem
American Journal of Neuroradiology January 2019, 40 (1) 19-24; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5908
P. Charkhchi
aFrom the Department of Radiology and Radiological Science (P.C., D.M.Y.), Division of Neuroradiology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for P. Charkhchi
B. Wang
bDepartment of Biostatistics (B.W., B.C.), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for B. Wang
B. Caffo
bDepartment of Biostatistics (B.W., B.C.), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for B. Caffo
D.M. Yousem
aFrom the Department of Radiology and Radiological Science (P.C., D.M.Y.), Division of Neuroradiology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for D.M. Yousem
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

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.

  • © 2019 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 40 (1)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 40, Issue 1
1 Jan 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Bias in Neuroradiology Peer Review: Impact of a “Ding” on “Dinging” Others
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Bias in Neuroradiology Peer Review: Impact of a “Ding” on “Dinging” Others
P. Charkhchi, B. Wang, B. Caffo, D.M. Yousem
American Journal of Neuroradiology Jan 2019, 40 (1) 19-24; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A5908

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Bias in Neuroradiology Peer Review: Impact of a “Ding” on “Dinging” Others
P. Charkhchi, B. Wang, B. Caffo, D.M. Yousem
American Journal of Neuroradiology Jan 2019, 40 (1) 19-24; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A5908
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Qualifying Certainty in Radiology Reports through Deep Learning–Based Natural Language Processing
  • Am I Ready to Be an Independent Neuroradiologist? Objective Trends in Neuroradiology Fellows' Performance during the Fellowship Year
  • Displaying Multiphase CT Angiography Using a Time-Variant Color Map: Practical Considerations and Potential Applications in Patients with Acute Stroke
Show more PRACTICE PERSPECTIVES

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2022 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2023 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire