- Browse by Subject
Browsing by Subject "Quality assurance"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?(Public Library of Science, 2010-04-08) Kravitz, Richard L.; Franks, Peter; Feldman, Mitchell D.; Gerrity, Martha; Byrne, Cindy; Tierney, William M.; Medicine, School of MedicineBackground Editorial peer review is universally used but little studied. We examined the relationship between external reviewers' recommendations and the editorial outcome of manuscripts undergoing external peer-review at the Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM). Methodology/Principal Findings We examined reviewer recommendations and editors' decisions at JGIM between 2004 and 2008. For manuscripts undergoing peer review, we calculated chance-corrected agreement among reviewers on recommendations to reject versus accept or revise. Using mixed effects logistic regression models, we estimated intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) at the reviewer and manuscript level. Finally, we examined the probability of rejection in relation to reviewer agreement and disagreement. The 2264 manuscripts sent for external review during the study period received 5881 reviews provided by 2916 reviewers; 28% of reviews recommended rejection. Chance corrected agreement (kappa statistic) on rejection among reviewers was 0.11 (p<.01). In mixed effects models adjusting for study year and manuscript type, the reviewer-level ICC was 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19–0.29) and the manuscript-level ICC was 0.17 (95% CI, 0.12–0.22). The editors' overall rejection rate was 48%: 88% when all reviewers for a manuscript agreed on rejection (7% of manuscripts) and 20% when all reviewers agreed that the manuscript should not be rejected (48% of manuscripts) (p<0.01). Conclusions/Significance Reviewers at JGIM agreed on recommendations to reject vs. accept/revise at levels barely beyond chance, yet editors placed considerable weight on reviewers' recommendations. Efforts are needed to improve the reliability of the peer-review process while helping editors understand the limitations of reviewers' recommendations.Item Improved human observer performance in digital reconstructed radiograph verification in head and neck cancer radiotherapy.(Springer, 2015-10) Sturgeon, Jared D.; Cox, John A.; Mayo, Lauren L.; Gunn, G. Brandon; Zhang, Lifei; Balter, Peter A.; Dong, Lei; Awan, Musaddiq; Kocak-Uzel, Esengul; Mohamed, Abdallah Sherif Radwan; Rosenthal, David I.; Fuller, Clifton David; Department of Radiation Oncology, IU School of MedicinePurpose: Digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) are routinely used as an a priori reference for setup correction in radiotherapy. The spatial resolution of DRRs may be improved to reduce setup error in fractionated radiotherapy treatment protocols. The influence of finer CT slice thickness reconstruction (STR) and resultant increased resolution DRRs on physician setup accuracy was prospectively evaluated. Methods: Four head and neck patient CT-simulation images were acquired and used to create DRR cohorts by varying STRs at 0.5, 1, 2, 2.5, and 3 mm. DRRs were displaced relative to a fixed isocenter using 0–5 mm random shifts in the three cardinal axes. Physician observers reviewed DRRs of varying STRs and displacements and then aligned reference and test DRRs replicating daily KV imaging workflow. A total of 1,064 images were reviewed by four blinded physicians. Observer errors were analyzed using nonparametric statistics (Friedman’s test) to determine whether STR cohorts had detectably different displacement profiles. Post hoc bootstrap resampling was applied to evaluate potential generalizability. Results: The observer-based trial revealed a statistically significant difference between cohort means for observer displacement vector error (p = 0.02) and for Z-axis (p < 0.01). Bootstrap analysis suggests a 15% gain in isocenter translational setup error with reduction of STR from 3 mm to ≤2 mm, though interobserver variance was a larger feature than STR-associated measurement variance. Conclusions: Higher resolution DRRs generated using finer CT scan STR resulted in improved observer performance at shift detection and could decrease operator-dependent geometric error. Ideally, CT STRs ≤2 mm should be utilized for DRR generation in the head and break neck.Item Intra- and intervariability in beam data commissioning among water phantom scanning systems(American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 2014-07-08) Akino, Yuichi; Gibbons, John P.; Neck, Daniel W.; Chu, Connel; Das, Indra J.; Radiation Oncology, School of MedicineAccurate beam data acquisition during commissioning is essential for modeling the treatment planning system and dose calculation in radiotherapy. Although currently several commercial scanning systems are available, there is no report that compared the differences among the systems because most institutions do not acquire several scanning systems due to the high cost, storage space, and infrequent usage. In this report, we demonstrate the intra- and intervariability of beam profiles measured with four commercial scanning systems. During a recent educational and training workshop, four different vendors of beam scanning water phantoms were invited to demonstrate the operation and data collection of their systems. Systems were set up utilizing vendor-recommended protocols and were operated with a senior physicist, who was assigned as an instructor along with vendor. During the training sessions, each group was asked to measure beam parameters, and the intravariability in percent depth dose (PDD). At the end of the day, the profile of one linear accelerator was measured with each system to evaluate intervariability. Relatively very small (SD < 0.12%) intervariability in PDD was observed among four systems at a region deeper than peak (1.5 cm). All systems showed almost identical profiles. At the area within 80% of radiation field, the average, and maximum differences were within ± 0.35% and 0.80%, respectively, compared to arbitrarily chosen IBA system as reference. In the penumbrae region, the distance to agreement (DTA) of the region where dose difference exceed ± 1% was less than 1 mm. Repeated PDD measurement showed small intravariability with SD < 0.5%, although large SD was observed in the buildup region. All four water phantom scanning systems demonstrated adequate accuracy for beam data collection (i.e., within 1% of dose difference or 1 mm of DTA among each other). It is concluded that every system is capable of acquiring accurate beam. Thus the selection of a water scanning system should be based on institutional comfort, personal preference of software and hardware, and financial consideration.