 |
|
Effects of Differences Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors and by Editors—Reply
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In Reply: We agree with Dr Cummings' analysis that ORs are not a good approximation to RRs when the risk of the outcome is large. The Table shows the original ORs with RRs for the same outcomes. Risk ratios were estimated by conditional Poisson regression with bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals (2000 replications sampling by study).1-2 We also report the RR for the alternative outcome (eg, reject vs accept or revise) because it is not the reciprocal of the original RR. The OR of the alternative outcome is the reciprocal of the OR of the original outcome.
Table appears in full text version.
|
|
|
|
Table. Relative Odds and Risk Ratios for Recommendations by Author-Suggested Reviewers Compared With Editor-Suggested Reviewers
|
|
|
It is important to interpret the effects of matched studies correctly, and in our study, all measures of effect are potentially useful. Risk ratios measure differences between reviewers' recommendations for all papers reviewed. Odds ratios measure differences between reviewers' . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Sara Schroter, PhD
sschroter@bmj.com
Leanne Tite, MSc
BMJ Editorial Office
BMA House
London, England
Andrew Hutchings, MSc;
Nick Black, MD
Health Services Research Unit
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
London, England
RELATED ARTICLES
Effects of Differences Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors and by Editors
Peter Cummings
JAMA. 2006;296(10):1231.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors
Sara Schroter, Leanne Tite, Andrew Hutchings, and Nick Black
JAMA. 2006;295(3):314-317.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
