Urology is a field with many subspecialties and, as a consequence, urological research grant applications are distributed to a variety of different study sections at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
It has long been the conviction of urological investigators that urological grant funding suffers as a result of this distribution.
We investigated the composition of these study sections to identify the prevalence of urological expertise (or lack thereof).
The review challenges the concept that urological research grant applications are being subjected to adequate peer review.
Aided by personnel from the National Institute for Diabetes, and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the National Cancer Institute, 22 study sections to which urological grants are distributed were identified.
A 3 to 5-year retrospective MEDLINE analysis of all the scientific publications of each study section member was done.
Urological experts were identified by the criterion of having more than 1 urological publication published per year or a proportional equivalent.
An equivalent analysis was performed for the study sections reviewing cardiology grants to serve as a comparison.
Data analysis revealed that only 12 of 351 study section members reviewing urological grants are urological experts (3.4%).
Mots-clés Pascal : Appareil urinaire pathologie, Urologie, Documentation médicale, Etats Unis, Amérique du Nord, Amérique, Homme
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Urinary system disease, Urology, Medical documentation, United States, North America, America, Human
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 95-0593380
Code Inist : 002B28G. Création : 01/03/1996.