{"title":"Effect of peer review on accuracy of reported auditory brainstem response thresholds in newborn hearing screening programme referrals","authors":"Sudhagar Kuttva, P. Radomskij, E. Raglan","doi":"10.3109/16513860903374646","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to establish the impact of peer review on estimated ABR thresholds. Study design: The reported ABR thresholds of two groups of 38 babies tested over a period of six months when a system of formal peer review was in place, and another period of six months when it was not in place, were retrospectively analysed by expert clinicians. Results: The modal differences between experts and tester estimated threshold with and without peer review were 5dB (-10 to +20) and 0dB (-10 to +35), respectively. Wilcoxon's signed-rank test for paired samples revealed a small but significant difference in estimated thresholds between experts and tester irrespective of whether tester was subjected to peer review on the day of the test or not. Conclusion: Peer review provides opportunities for peer support and continuing professional development. A system of formal peer review is strongly advocated.","PeriodicalId":88223,"journal":{"name":"Audiological medicine","volume":"1 1","pages":"205 - 210"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Audiological medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3109/16513860903374646","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to establish the impact of peer review on estimated ABR thresholds. Study design: The reported ABR thresholds of two groups of 38 babies tested over a period of six months when a system of formal peer review was in place, and another period of six months when it was not in place, were retrospectively analysed by expert clinicians. Results: The modal differences between experts and tester estimated threshold with and without peer review were 5dB (-10 to +20) and 0dB (-10 to +35), respectively. Wilcoxon's signed-rank test for paired samples revealed a small but significant difference in estimated thresholds between experts and tester irrespective of whether tester was subjected to peer review on the day of the test or not. Conclusion: Peer review provides opportunities for peer support and continuing professional development. A system of formal peer review is strongly advocated.