同行评议与外科手术创新:机器人手术及其障碍。

Dinesh Vyas, Sean Cronin
{"title":"同行评议与外科手术创新:机器人手术及其障碍。","authors":"Dinesh Vyas,&nbsp;Sean Cronin","doi":"10.1166/ajrs.2015.1018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The peer review processes as outlined in the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) is meant ensure quality standard of care through a self-policing mechanism by the medical community. This process grants immunity for people filing a peer review, which is meant to protect whistleblowers. However, it also creates a loophole that can be used maliciously to hinder competition. This is accentuated when surgeons are integrating new technologies, such as robotic surgery, into their practice. With more than 2000 da Vinci robots in use and more than 300 new units being shipped each year, robotic surgery has become a mainstay in the surgical field. The applications for robots continue to expand as surgeons discover their expanding capability. We need a better peer review process. That ensures the peer review is void of competitive bias. Peer reviewers need to be familiar with the procedure and the technology. The current process could stymie innovation in the name of competition.</p>","PeriodicalId":91050,"journal":{"name":"American journal of robotic surgery","volume":"2 1","pages":"39-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1166/ajrs.2015.1018","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Peer Review and Surgical Innovation: Robotic Surgery and Its Hurdles.\",\"authors\":\"Dinesh Vyas,&nbsp;Sean Cronin\",\"doi\":\"10.1166/ajrs.2015.1018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The peer review processes as outlined in the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) is meant ensure quality standard of care through a self-policing mechanism by the medical community. This process grants immunity for people filing a peer review, which is meant to protect whistleblowers. However, it also creates a loophole that can be used maliciously to hinder competition. This is accentuated when surgeons are integrating new technologies, such as robotic surgery, into their practice. With more than 2000 da Vinci robots in use and more than 300 new units being shipped each year, robotic surgery has become a mainstay in the surgical field. The applications for robots continue to expand as surgeons discover their expanding capability. We need a better peer review process. That ensures the peer review is void of competitive bias. Peer reviewers need to be familiar with the procedure and the technology. The current process could stymie innovation in the name of competition.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":91050,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of robotic surgery\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"39-44\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1166/ajrs.2015.1018\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of robotic surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1166/ajrs.2015.1018\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of robotic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1166/ajrs.2015.1018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

《医疗保健质量改进法案》(HCQIA)中概述的同行评议过程旨在通过医学界的自我监督机制确保医疗质量标准。这一程序为提交同行评议的人提供了豁免权,这是为了保护举报人。然而,它也创造了一个漏洞,可以被恶意利用来阻碍竞争。当外科医生将机器人手术等新技术整合到他们的实践中时,这一点就更加突出了。每年有超过2000台达芬奇机器人投入使用,300多台新设备投入使用,机器人手术已经成为外科手术领域的支柱。随着外科医生发现机器人的扩展能力,机器人的应用也在不断扩大。我们需要一个更好的同行评议过程。这确保了同行评议不存在竞争偏见。同行审稿人需要熟悉程序和技术。目前的程序可能会以竞争的名义阻碍创新。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Peer Review and Surgical Innovation: Robotic Surgery and Its Hurdles.

Peer Review and Surgical Innovation: Robotic Surgery and Its Hurdles.

Peer Review and Surgical Innovation: Robotic Surgery and Its Hurdles.

Peer Review and Surgical Innovation: Robotic Surgery and Its Hurdles.

The peer review processes as outlined in the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) is meant ensure quality standard of care through a self-policing mechanism by the medical community. This process grants immunity for people filing a peer review, which is meant to protect whistleblowers. However, it also creates a loophole that can be used maliciously to hinder competition. This is accentuated when surgeons are integrating new technologies, such as robotic surgery, into their practice. With more than 2000 da Vinci robots in use and more than 300 new units being shipped each year, robotic surgery has become a mainstay in the surgical field. The applications for robots continue to expand as surgeons discover their expanding capability. We need a better peer review process. That ensures the peer review is void of competitive bias. Peer reviewers need to be familiar with the procedure and the technology. The current process could stymie innovation in the name of competition.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信