Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Making peer review statistically accountable

K S Scher1, C E Scott-Conner

  • 1Department of Surgery, Family Health Plan Cooperative, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53215, USA.

American Journal of Surgery
|April 1, 1996
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Quantitative lymph node burden as a 'very-high-risk' factor identifying head and neck cancer patients benefiting from postoperative chemoradiation.

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology·2019
Same author

Quantitative lymph node burden as a 'very-high-risk' factor identifying head and neck cancer patients benefiting from postoperative chemoradiation.

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology·2018
Same author

The national cancer data base: what does it mean to the community surgeon?

Journal of surgical oncology·2000
Same author

Photorefractive keratectomy for myopia with a 15 Hz repetition rate.

Journal of cataract and refractive surgery·2000
Same author

National Cancer Data Base survey of breast cancer management for patients from low income zip codes.

Cancer·2000
Same author

An analysis of male and female breast cancer treatment and survival among demographically identical pairs of patients.

Surgery·1999
Same journal

High and low body mass index and 90-day postoperative outcomes in patients with Crohn's disease undergoing abdominal surgery.

American journal of surgery·2026
Same journal

Women with firearm injuries: A multicenter mixed-methods study.

American journal of surgery·2026
Same journal

SBAS presidential address: A surgeon-scientist's journey from haptic science to digital performance metrics.

American journal of surgery·2026
Same journal

Using Dr. Google and AI to stay informed.

American journal of surgery·2026
Same journal

Revealing the sex divide: Primary hyperparathyroidism across the American population.

American journal of surgery·2026
Same journal

Pressure points: A pilot study using the NASA-TLX tool to measure the intensity of Acute care surgery work.

American journal of surgery·2026
See all related articles

Statistical analysis of surgical outcomes can objectively identify underperforming surgeons. This data-driven approach to peer review offers a more reliable alternative to anecdotal methods for improving patient care.

Area of Science:

  • Healthcare Quality
  • Surgical Outcomes Research
  • Medical Peer Review

Background:

  • Traditional hospital peer review often relies on anecdotal evidence, raising concerns about objectivity.
  • Existing methods lack consistent, data-driven approaches to surgeon performance evaluation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To introduce a statistically rigorous method for surgical peer review.
  • To assess the feasibility of comparing individual surgeon outcomes to a community standard.

Main Methods:

  • Reviewed outcomes of 1,500 abdominal operations across three community hospitals.
  • Statistically compared each surgeon's outcome profile against the community's cumulative profile.
  • Adjusted for patient physiology, surgical complexity, and indications for surgery.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Identified a surgeon with significantly poorer outcomes than peers.
  • Determined that poor performance could not be attributed to patient mix or procedure complexity.
  • Demonstrated the ability to statistically differentiate surgeon performance.

Conclusions:

  • Statistical comparison of surgeon outcome profiles offers an objective peer review method.
  • This data-driven approach may be superior to traditional retrospective case reviews.
  • Recommends adopting statistical outcome profiling for enhanced surgical peer review.