1naresh<pre>Array
(
    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array
        (
            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity
            [type] => guest
            [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org
            [access-type] => Controlled
            [privilege] => Array
                (
                    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array
                        (
                            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege
                            [type] => privilege-set
                            [privilege-set] => GUEST
                        )

                )

            [credentials] => Array
                (
                    [method] => guest
                )

        )

)
1naresh<pre>Array
(
    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array
        (
            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity
            [type] => guest
            [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org
            [access-type] => FreeToRead
            [privilege] => Array
                (
                    [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array
                        (
                            [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege
                            [type] => privilege-set
                            [privilege-set] => GUEST
                        )

                )

            [credentials] => Array
                (
                    [method] => guest
                )

        )

)
RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Bias in Neuroradiology Peer Review: Impact of a “Ding” on “Dinging” Others
JF American Journal of Neuroradiology
JO Am. J. Neuroradiol.
FD American Society of Neuroradiology
SP 19
OP 24
DO 10.3174/ajnr.A5908
VO 40
IS 1
A1 Charkhchi, P.
A1 Wang, B.
A1 Caffo, B.
A1 Yousem, D.M.
YR 2019
UL http://www.ajnr.org/content/40/1/19.abstract
AB 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.