Head and neck (HN) radiotherapy (RT) is complex, involving multiple target and organ at risk (OAR) structures delineated by the radiation oncologist. Site-agnostic peer review after RT plan completion is often inadequate for thorough review of these structures. In-depth review of RT contours is critical to maintain high-quality RT and optimal patient outcomes.

In August 2020, the HN RT Quality Assurance Conference, a weekly teleconference that included at least one radiation oncology HN specialist, was activated at our institution. Targets and OARs were reviewed in detail prior to RT plan creation. A parallel implementation study recorded patient factors and outcomes of these reviews. A major change was any modification to the high-dose planning target volume (PTV) or the prescription dose/fractionation; a minor change was modification to the intermediate-dose PTV, low-dose PTV, or any OAR. We analysed the results of consecutive RT contour review in the first 20 months since its initiation.

A total of 208 patients treated by 8 providers were reviewed: 86·5% from the primary tertiary care hospital and 13·5% from regional practices. A major change was recommended in 14·4% and implemented in 25 of 30 cases (83·3%). A minor change was recommended in 17·3% and implemented in 32 of 36 cases (88·9%). A survey of participants found that all (n = 11) strongly agreed or agreed that the conference was useful.

Dedicated review of RT targets/OARs with a HN subspecialist is associated with substantial rates of suggested and implemented modifications to the contours.

Peer review is an essential quality assurance component of radiation therapy planning. A growing body of literature has demonstrated substantial rates of suggested plan changes resulting from peer review. There remains a paucity of data on the impact of peer review rounds for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We therefore aim to evaluate the outcomes of peer review in this specific patient cohort.

We conducted a retrospective review of all SBRT cases that underwent peer review from July 2015 to June 2018 at a single institution. Weekly peer review rounds are grouped according to cancer subsite and attended by radiation oncologists, medical physicists and medical radiation technologists. We prospectively compiled ‘learning moments’, defined as cases with suggested changes or where an educational discussion occurred beyond routine management, and critical errors, defined as errors which could alter clinical outcomes, recorded prospectively during peer review. Plan changes implemented after peer review were documented.

Nine hundred thirty-four SBRT cases were included. The most common treatment sites were lung (518, 55%), liver (196, 21%) and spine (119, 13%). Learning moments were identified in 161 cases (17%) and translated into plan changes in 28 cases (3%). Two critical errors (0.2%) were identified: an inadequate planning target volume margin and an incorrect image set used for contouring. There was a statistically significantly higher rate of learning moments for lower-volume SBRT sites (defined as ≤30 cases/year) versus higher-volume SBRT sites (29% vs 16%, respectively; p = 0.001).

Peer review for SBRT cases revealed a low rate of critical errors, but did result in implemented plan changes in 3% of cases, and either educational discussion or suggestions of plan changes in 17% of cases. All SBRT sites appear to benefit from peer review, though lower-volume sites may require particular attention.

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated gender disparities in some academic disciplines. This study examined the association of the pandemic with gender authorship disparities in clinical neuropsychology (CN) journals.

Author bylines of 1,018 initial manuscript submissions to four major CN journals from March 15 through September 15 of both 2019 and 2020 were coded for binary gender. Additionally, authorship of 40 articles published on pandemic-related topics (COVID-19, teleneuropsychology) across nine CN journals were coded for binary gender.

Initial submissions to these four CN journals increased during the pandemic (+27.2%), with comparable increases in total number of authors coded as either women (+23.0%) or men (+25.4%). Neither the average percentage of women on manuscript bylines nor the proportion of women who were lead and/or corresponding authors differed significantly across time. Moreover, the representation of women as authors of pandemic-related articles did not differ from expected frequencies in the field.

Findings suggest that representation of women as authors of peer-reviewed manuscript submissions to some CN journals did not change during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies might examine how risk and protective factors may have influenced individual differences in scientific productivity during the pandemic.

Peer review of searches is a process whereby both the search strategies and the search process description are reviewed, ideally using an evidence-based checklist.

As the search strategy underpins any well-conducted evidence synthesis, its quality could affect the final result. Evidence shows, however, that search strategies are prone to error.

There is increasing awareness and use of the PRESS Evidence-Based Checklist and peer review of search strategies, at the outset of evidence syntheses, prior to the searches being run, and this is now recommended by a number of evidence synthesis organizations.

Searches for evidence syntheses should be peer reviewed by a suitably qualified and experienced librarian or information specialist after being designed, ideally, by another suitably qualified and experienced librarian or information specialist. Peer review of searches should take place at two important stages in the evidence synthesis process; at the outset of the project prior to the searches being run and at the prepublication stage. There is little empirical evidence, however, to support the effectiveness of peer review of searches. Further research is required to assess this. Those wishing to stay up to date with the latest developments in information retrieval, including peer review of searches, should consult the SuRe Info resource (http://www.sure-info.org), which seeks to help information specialists and others by providing easy access to the findings from current information retrieval methods research and thus support more research-based information retrieval practice.