Olsson C A, Kennedy W A
Department of Urology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
J Urol. 1995 Nov;154(5):1866-9.
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%). Only 3.1% of the collective published productivity of these members is in the broadly defined field of urological investigation. Omitting the published productivity of these 12 experts, less than 1% of the published works of the remaining 339 members reflects interest or expertise in urological investigations. Of the 22 study sections only 8 have urological expertise represented in their membership. Except for 1 study section, representation of urological experts was usually limited to 1 individual reflecting a 5.9 to 11.1% minority in these study sections.
The lack of urological expertise represented on the NIH study sections reviewing basic and clinical urological research grant applications has far reaching ramifications. Consequently, grant applications on genitourinary diseases that commonly afflict a preponderance of Americans are inadequately reviewed at the NIH. Only through the provision of appropriate peer reviewers will this problem be solved.
泌尿外科是一个包含多个亚专业的领域，因此，泌尿外科研究资助申请会被分配到美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）的各种不同研究小组。长期以来，泌尿外科研究人员一直认为，这种分配导致泌尿外科资助资金受到影响。我们调查了这些研究小组的组成，以确定泌尿外科专业知识（或缺乏专业知识）的普遍程度。该综述对泌尿外科研究资助申请正在接受充分同行评审这一概念提出了质疑。
在美国国立糖尿病、消化和肾脏疾病研究所以及国立癌症研究所人员的协助下，确定了分配有泌尿外科资助的22个研究小组。对每个研究小组成员的所有科学出版物进行了3至5年的回顾性MEDLINE分析。通过每年发表超过1篇泌尿外科相关出版物或同等比例的标准来确定泌尿外科专家。对评审心脏病学资助的研究小组进行了等效分析以作比较。
数据分析显示，在评审泌尿外科资助的351名研究小组成员中，只有12名是泌尿外科专家（3.4%）。这些成员的集体发表成果中，只有3.1%属于广义的泌尿外科研究领域。如果不计算这12位专家的发表成果，其余339名成员的发表作品中，反映泌尿外科研究兴趣或专业知识的不到1%。在这22个研究小组中，只有8个小组的成员具有泌尿外科专业知识。除了1个研究小组外，泌尿外科专家的代表性通常仅限于1人，在这些研究小组中占少数，比例为5.9%至11.1%。
NIH评审基础和临床泌尿外科研究资助申请的研究小组中缺乏泌尿外科专业知识，这具有深远影响。因此，NIH对通常困扰大量美国人的泌尿生殖系统疾病的资助申请审查不足。只有通过提供合适的同行评审人员，这个问题才能得到解决。
