Correspondence Letters from Readers

摘要

I commend Dr. Huntoon on his informativearticle on sham peer review.1He identified many of the risk factors,including those affecting solo andsmall-group practitioners, foreign-bornphysicians, innovators, and physicianswhose practices compete with thehospital or influential members of themedical staff.A few observations: Initiators of shampeer review are usually in larger groupsand maintain their power positions in thevarious committees that start the processor decide on “punishment.” The targetedphysician usually has a successful andincreasing practice that threatens thefinancialstatus quo. Complications experiencedby patients of the accusers,if their number can be determined,generally exceed those blamed on theaccused. Hospital review boards andthe peer review system can only handleone review at a time, precluding anymeaningful review of the accusers or theirassociates. As long as the review runs itscourse, accusers are effectively immunefrom review themselves.