Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 11/2016

01-11-2016 | Editorial

Editorial: CORR’s New Peer-Reviewer Tool—Useful for More Than Peer Reviews

Author: Seth S. Leopold, MD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 11/2016

Login to get access

Excerpt

Orthopaedic surgeons base clinical decisions in large measure upon what we read, and the quality of what we read depends critically upon the effectiveness of peer review. But the peer-review process has a number of important shortcomings, chief among them being its dependence on the generosity of busy volunteers and large disparities among reviewers in terms of experience, training, and skill. …
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre. How to read clinical journals: I. Why to read them and how to start reading them critically. Can Med Assoc J. 1981;124:555–558.
2.
Emerson GB, Warme WJ, Wolf FM, Heckman JD, Brand RA, Leopold SS. Testing for the presence of positive outcome bias in peer review: A randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1934–1939.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Evidence-based Medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. 1992;268: 2420–2425.CrossRef
4.
Gilovich T. How We Know What Isn’t So. The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. New York, NY: The Free Press; 1991.
5.
6.
Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature—A Manual for Evidence-based Clinical Practice, Third Edition. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education; 2015.
7.
Leopold SS. Editorial: No difference studies make a big difference. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:3329–3331.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Sackett DL, Parkes J. Teaching critical appraisal: No quick fixes. Can Med Assoc J. 1998;158:203–204.
Metadata
Title
Editorial: CORR’s New Peer-Reviewer Tool—Useful for More Than Peer Reviews
Author
Seth S. Leopold, MD
Publication date
01-11-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 11/2016
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-5050-6

Other articles of this Issue 11/2016

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 11/2016 Go to the issue

Value-based Healthcare

Value-based Healthcare: Part 2—Addressing the Obstacles to Implementing Integrated Practice Units for the Management of Musculoskeletal Disease

Basic Research

Does Patella Tendon Tenodesis Improve Tibial Tubercle Distalization in Treating Patella Alta? A Computational Study

Symposium: Advances in PEEK Technology

Do Surface Porosity and Pore Size Influence Mechanical Properties and Cellular Response to PEEK?

Basic Research

High Risk of Surgical Glove Perforation From Surgical Rotatory Instruments

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor: Is There a Benefit to Modularity in ‘Simpler’ Femoral Revisions?

CORR Insights

CORR Insights®: Satisfying Results of Primary Hip Arthroplasty in Patients with Hip Dysplasia at a Mean Followup of 20 Years