NIH weighs peer review changes.

  • Les Lang
  • Published 2008 in Gastroenterology

Abstract

creased waiting time was also noted (from approximately 294 to 250 days; 44.4 days), which reached a new, lower post-intervention steady state,” the authors write. “With the transition in allocation policy from a system that emphasized waiting time to one that favored disease severity with a de-emphasis on patient waiting time, many less-ill registrants placed on the list for the sole purpose of ‘banking time’ may have been removed, leading to an overall decrease in the time to transplantation for the remaining registrants.” The change did not appear to affect the number of new registrants per month or the survival rates 3 or 6 months after transplantation. “Given that the new allocation policy prioritizes patients with higher MELD scores to receive transplants, these results are encouraging,” the authors state. The report notes that, in solid organ transplantation, “the liver transplantation community was the first to adopt an objective score as the basis of organ allocation policy. Careful evaluation of this major change in the allocation of deceased donor livers is essential because it may direct future allocation policies. Using the interrupted time series method, our data provide more conclusive evidence that this policy had a positive impact on waiting list mortality. Because significant resources are expended in efforts to equitably allocate organs, this work provides empiric justification of this policy change.” For more details see “Model for End-Stage Liver Disease,” Arch Surg 2007;142:1079 –1085.

DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.12.040

Cite this paper

@article{Lang2008NIHWP, title={NIH weighs peer review changes.}, author={Les Lang}, journal={Gastroenterology}, year={2008}, volume={134 2}, pages={380} }