{"title":"同行评议对新生儿听力筛查项目转诊报告的听觉脑干反应阈值准确性的影响","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":"{\"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}","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}
Effect of peer review on accuracy of reported auditory brainstem response thresholds in newborn hearing screening programme referrals
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.