History of Medical Records and Peer Review

Mz, Al Kawi

doi:10.5144/0256-4947.1997.277

Cited by 20 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our Supercourse group has published several articles on QC for PowerPoint lectures online [22][23][24]. One of our major quality control studies explored the applicability of traditional peer review systems for online lectures; we were surprised to find very poor agreement among peer reviewers [4]. The multilayered approach to QC that we would like to develop in the Supercourse is defined as the utilization and synthesis of several existing QC systems, including peer review, editorial board, consumer feedback, Web-based approaches, and other methods relevant to QC of online materials.…”

Section: Quality Control In the Supercoursementioning

confidence: 99%

Multilayer and Multimetric Quality Control: The Supercourse

Linkov

Omenn

Serageldin³

et al. 2010

J Canc Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cancer-related presentations are rapidly communicated through thousands of Websites, chat rooms, newsgroups, list servers, newsletters, YouTube, and e-mails, with no specific attention to the validity of the reported findings. Quality control (QC) of cancer education lectures on the Web is an important concern, just like the quality assessment of all information found on the Web. This paper discusses the Supercourse, a global library of 3,600 online lectures available at www.pitt.edu/~super1 and several alternative quality control approaches that are being developed as part of this global effort. Peer review may not be optimal for the review of online lectures because it is labor-intensive and has low throughput. To our knowledge, we are among the first to begin a multilayer and multimetric evaluation approach toward QC (MQC) of PowerPoint lectures on the Web. We hope that future scientific research on peer review as well as on emerging multilayer QC methodologies will help us to determine best measures of QC, especially in the field of rapidly developing cancer education.

show abstract

Section: Quality Control In the Supercoursementioning

confidence: 99%

Multilayer and Multimetric Quality Control: The Supercourse

Linkov

Omenn

Serageldin³

et al. 2010

J Canc Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Perhaps the earliest description of medical peer review with regard to quality assessment is found in the Ethics of the Physician written by Ishap bin Ali al-Rahawi (854–931) of al-Raha. It mentions the duty of Arabic physicians to duplicate their patients notes for evaluation by a local council of physicians who proved whether the physician had performed according to the common standards [ 9 ]. In 1994 Richard Grol published the method of peer review for quality improvement in medical care [ 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit – a retrospective descriptive cohort study in German intensive care units

Kumpf

Bloos

Bause

et al. 2014

GMS German Medical Science; 12:Doc17; ISSN 1612-3174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…T he first documented description of a peer review process to regulate the medical profession was in a book titled Ethics of the Physician (Adab al-T _ ab ıb) written by the Syrian physician Ish aq bin Ali Al-Rahawi (854-931 A.D.) from Al Raha in northern Syria. 1 This book indicates that one of the duties of a physician is to write duplicate notes for their patients. When the patient had recovered or had died, one of these notes was to be examined by a senior medical council to assess whether malpractice had taken place according to the standards of that time.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review

Haffar¹,

Bazerbachi

Murad

2019

Mayo Clinic Proceedings

103

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various types of bias and confounding have been described in the biomedical literature that can affect a study before, during, or after the intervention has been delivered. The peer review process can also introduce bias. A compelling ethical and moral rationale necessitates improving the peer review process. A double-blind peer review system is supported on equipoise and fair-play principles. Tripleand quadruple-blind systems have also been described but are not commonly used. The open peer review system introduces "Skin in the Game" heuristic principles for both authors and reviewers and has a small favorable effect on the quality of published reports. In this exposition, we present, on the basis of a comprehensive literature search of PubMed from its inception until October 20, 2017, various possible mechanisms by which the peer review process can distort research results, and we discuss the evidence supporting different strategies that may mitigate this bias. It is time to improve the quality, transparency, and accountability of the peer review system. ª 2018 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research n Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(4):670-676 Drs Haffar and Bazerbachi contributed equally to this work and are co-first authors.

show abstract

History of Medical Records and Peer Review

Cited by 20 publications

References 1 publication

Multilayer and Multimetric Quality Control: The Supercourse

Multilayer and Multimetric Quality Control: The Supercourse

Voluntary peer review as innovative tool for quality improvement in the intensive care unit – a retrospective descriptive cohort study in German intensive care units

Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About