Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials

BMC Medicine

Jigisha Patel¹ 

[1]Biomed Central Ltd, Floor 6, 236 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8HB, UK

关键词: CONSORT;    Reporting guidelines;    Medical education;    Clinical training;    RCT;    Randomized controlled trials;    EBM;    Evidence based medicine;    Peer review;   

Others  :  1123221
DOI  :  10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z

 received in 2014-05-22, accepted in 2014-07-14,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The purpose and effectiveness of peer review is currently a subject of hot debate, as is the need for greater openness and transparency in the conduct of clinical trials. Innovations in peer review have focused on the process of peer review rather than its quality.

Discussion

The aims of peer review are poorly defined, with no evidence that it works and no established way to provide training. However, despite the lack of evidence for its effectiveness, evidence-based medicine, which directly informs patient care, depends on the system of peer review. The current system applies the same process to all fields of research and all study designs. While the volume of available health related information is vast, there is no consistent means for the lay person to judge its quality or trustworthiness. Some types of research, such as randomized controlled trials, may lend themselves to a more specialized form of peer review where training and ongoing appraisal and revalidation is provided to individuals who peer review randomized controlled trials. Any randomized controlled trial peer reviewed by such a trained peer reviewer could then have a searchable ‘quality assurance’ symbol attached to the published articles and any published peer reviewer reports, thereby providing some guidance to the lay person seeking to inform themselves about their own health or medical treatment.

Summary

Specialization, training and ongoing appraisal and revalidation in peer review, coupled with a quality assurance symbol for the lay person, could address some of the current limitations of peer review for randomized controlled trials.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Patel; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine JAMA 1992, 268:2420-2425.
• [2]Bero L, Rennie D: The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA 1995, 274:1935-1938.
• [3]Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) Lancet 1994, 344:1383-1389.
• [4]Pyŏrälä K, Pedersen TR, Kjekshus J, Faergeman O, Olsson AG, Thorgeirsson G: Cholesterol lowering with simvastatin improves prognosis of diabetic patients with coronary heart disease. A subgroup analysis of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Diabetes Care 1997, 20:614-620.
• [5]Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF: Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996, 276:637-639.
• [6][http://www.equator-network.org/] webcite The EQUATOR NETWORK []
• [7]De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJ, Schroeder TV, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB: Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med 2004, 351:1250-1251.
• [8][http://www.alltrials.net/] webcite AllTrials []
• [9]Wager L, Godlee F, Jefferson T: What is peer review? In How to survive peer review, Chapter 2.ᅟ UK: BMJ books; 2002. Chapter 2.
• [10]Weller AC: Introduction to the editorial review process. In Editorial Peer Review, Its Strengths and Weeknesss, Chapter 1. 2nd edition.ᅟ USA: Information Today Inc; 2002, 15.
• [11]Smith R: Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006, 99:178-82.
• [12]van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N: Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 1998, 280:234-237.
• [13]van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R: Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 1999, 318:23-27.
• [14]Smith R: Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ 1999, 318:4.
• [15][http:/ / seedmagazine.com/ content/ article/ harold_varmus_public_library_of_sci ence/ ] webcite Anthes E, Former NIH Director on Open Access: Harold Varmus: Public Library of Science. Available at: []
• [16][http://www.biomedcentral.com/] webcite BioMed Central []
• [17][http://www.plosone.org/] webcite PloS One []
• [18]Ware M, Mabe M: The STM report. An Overview of Scientific and Scholarly Journal Publishing. International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, UK; 2012.
• [19][http://www.biomedcentral.com/biome/video-is-peer-review-broken/] webcite Is Peer Review Broken? []
• [20]Robertson M: Re-review opt out and painless publishing. BMC Biology 2013, 11:18. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21][http://f1000research.com/author-guidelines] webcite 21 F1000 Research []
• [22][http://www.peerageofscience.org/] webcite Peerage of Science []
• [23][http://axiosreview.org/the-process/] webcite Axious Review []
• [24][http://www.rubriq.com/] webcite Rubriq []
• [25][http://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/transferfaq] webcite BioMed Central transfers []
• [26][http://elifesciences.org/about#process] webcite eLife []
• [27][http://www.frontiersin.org/about/reviewsystem] webcite Frontiers []
• [28]Jefferson TO, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F: Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 2002, 287:2784-2786.
• [29]Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F: Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, 18:MR000016.
• [30]Hirst A, Altman DG: Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals.PloS One ᅟ, 7:e35621.
• [31]Mulligan A, Hall L, Raphael E: Peer review in a changing world: an international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. JASIS&T 2013, 64:132-161.
• [32]Mettes TD, Ghaeminia H, Nienhuijs ME, Perry J, van der Sanden WJ, Plasschaert A: Surgical removal versus retention for the management of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, 13:CD003879.
• [33]House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: Peer review in scientific publications. Eight Report of Session 2010-12 UK.
• [34]Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R: Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004, 328:673.
• [35]Houry D, Green S, Callaham ML: Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Educ 2012, 12:83. BioMed Central Full Text
• [36]Callaham ML, Tercier J: The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med 2007, 4:e40.
• [37]Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, Smith R: What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? JR Soc Med 2008, 101:507-514.
• [38]Callaham M, McCulloch C: Longitudinal trends in the performance of scientific peer reviewers. Ann Emerg Med 2011, 57:141-148.
• [39]Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D: Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Syst Rev 2012, 1:60. BioMed Central Full Text
• [40]Hopewell S, Collins GS, Boutron I, Yu LM, Cook J, Shanyinde M, Wharton R, Shamseer L, Altman DG: Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ 2014, 349:g4145.
• [41]Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D: CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2010, 152:726-732.
• [42][http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/our-services/product-certification/kitemark/] webcite Bsi Kitemark []