Systemic bias in peer Review: Suggested causes, potential remedies

Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 123-128

  Kadar, Nicholas ^a  

^a New Jersey Bar   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CYSTOSCOPY; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGIC DISEASE; GYNECOLOGIC SURGERY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; HYSTERECTOMY; HYSTEROSCOPY; LAPAROSCOPY; LAPAROTOMY; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; OBSTETRIC OPERATION; OBSTETRICS; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SALPINGOOOPHORECTOMY; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY;

FEMALE; GYNECOLOGY; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; LAPAROSCOPY; MEDICAL RECORDS; OBSTETRICS; PEER REVIEW, HEALTH CARE; PHYSICIANS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PREJUDICE; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 77949615919     PISSN: 10926429     EISSN: 15579034     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/lap.2009.0345     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Hayward RA, McMahon LF, Bernard AM. Evaluating care of general medicine inpatients: How good is implicit review? Ann Int Med 1993;118:550-556.
2. Posner K, Caplan RA, Cheney FW. Variations in expert opinion on medical malpractice review. Anesthesiology 1996;85a:1049-1054.
3. Goldman RL. The reliability of peer assessments of quality of care. JAMA 1992;267:958-960.
4. Smith MA, Atherly AJ, Kane RL, Pacala JT. Peer review of the quality of care: Reliability and sources of variability for outcome and process assessments. JAMA 1997;278:1573-1578.
5. Localio AR, Weaver SL, Landis R, Lawthers AG, Brennan TA, Herbert L, Sharp TJ. Identifying adverse events caused by medical care: Degree of physician agreement in a retrospective chart review. Ann Int Med 1996;125:457-464.
6. Hofer TP, Bernstein SJ, DeMonner S, Hayward RA. Discussion between reviewers does not improve reliability of peer review of hospital quality. Med Care 2000;38:152-161.
7. Sithian v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 734 N.Y.S.2d 812 (2001).
8. Meyers v. Partridge, No. CL01-31259-EHtTF (Circuit Court of Newport News, March 13, 2007), Petition for Appeal, No. 070775, denied but affirming judgment (Oct. 26, 2007), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 1740 (2008).
9. Parmley, WW. Clinical peer review or competitive hatchet job? J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36:1.
10. Navez B, Tassetti V, Scohy JJ, Mutter D, Guiot P, Evrard S, Marescaux J. Laparoscopic management of acute peritonitis. Br J Surg 1998;85:32-36.
11. Kaloo P, Cooper M, Reid G. A prospective, multicenter study of laparoscopic complications related to direct-entry technique. Gynaecol Endosc 2002;11:67-70.
12. Summitt RL, Stovall TG, Steege JF, Lipscomb GH. A multicenter, randomized comparison of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy in abdominal hysterectomy candidates. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92: 321-326.
13. Franklin ME, Dorman JP, Pharand D. Laparoscopic surgery in acute small bowel obstruction. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1994;4:289-296.
14. Evans J St. B T. The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonom Bull Rev 2006;13:378-395.
15. Stanovich KE. The fundamental computational biases of human cognition: Heuristics that (sometimes) impair decision making and problem solving. In: Davidson JE, Sternberg RJ (eds): The Psychology of Problem Solving. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 291-342.
16. Kahneman D, Fredercik S. Representation revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgments. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds): Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 49-81.
17. Evans J St. B T, Over DE. If. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 7-10, 162-168.
18. Sloman SA. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull 1996;119:3-22.
19. Kahneman D. A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 2003;58: 697-719.
20. Wilson TD. Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious. Cambridge, UK: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2002.
21. Gazzaniga MS. The Mind's Past. Berkley, California: University of California Press, 1998.
22. Gilbert DT. How mental systems believe. Am Psychol 1991;46:107-119.
23. Gilbert DT. Inferential correction. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds): Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 167-184.
24. Evans J St. B T. In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends Cogin Sci 2003;7:454-460.
25. Reason J. The Human Contribution: Unsafe Acts, Accidents and Heroic Recoveries. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 2008, pp. 9-25, 29-47.
26. Croskerry P. Achieving quality in clinical decision making: Cognitive strategies and detection of bias. Acad Emerg Med 2002;9:1184-1204.
27. Cuschieri A. Nature of human error. Implications for surgical practice. Ann Surg 2006;244:642-648.
28. Redelmeier DA, Ferris LE, Vu JT, Hux JE, Scull MJ. Problems for clinical judgment: Introducing cognitive psychology as one more basic science. CMAJ 2001;164:358-360.
29. Wears RL, Nemeth CP. Replacing hindsight bias with insight: Toward better understanding of diagnostic errors. Ann Emerg Med 2007;49:206-209.
30. Lord CG, Ross L, Lepper MR. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 1979;37:2098-2109.
31. Snyder M, Swann WB. Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. J Pers Soc Psychol 1978;36:1202-1212.
32. Kahneman D, Miller S. Norm theory. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds): Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 238-266.
33. Gilovich T. Differential construal and the false consensus effect. J Pers Soc Psychol 1990;59:623-634.
34. Rose NJ, Olson JM. Counterfactuals, causal attributions, and the hindsight bias: A conceptual integration. J Exp Soc Psychol 1996;32:197-227.