Significance of urodynamic assessment of lower urinary tract in dialysis patients before renal transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Some dialyzed patients suffer from lower urinary tract (LUT) anatomic and functional disturbances. Complete LUT assessment should be performed to decide whether they can be included on the waiting list, because such disorders, if not diagnosed and properly treated before transplant, may lead to graft loss. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Based on data in the medical records of 4170 dialysis patients, 535 were selected for further investigation: 265 patients after undergoing urethrocystography or urethrocystoscopy, were included on the waiting list for transplantation and 145 patients underwent nephroureterectomy owing to reflux, nephrolithiasis, polycystic renal disease, or hydronephrosis. Five patients with urethral or bladder neck stricture underwent urethral dilation or bladder neck incision. These patients were also ultimately listed for transplantation. Twenty-two patients, with serious LUT disease were qualified for kidney transplantation after extra-anatomic urine outflow. Ninety-eight patients underwent a urodynamic study (URD) to assess LUT disturbances. RESULTS: Of 535 studied patients, 460 (86%), including those who underwent surgical or pharmacologic treatment, were ultimately listed for kidney transplantation. Out of 98 patients who underwent a URD, 45 (46%) were included for kidney transplantation, and 47 for transplantation with atypical urinary outflow. Six patients were excluded from transplantation owing to refusal of investigations or serious contraindications. CONCLUSIONS: All potential kidney recipients should undergo proper evaluation of the LUT before being qualified for kidney transplantation. This study allows selection of patients who should undergo surgical and/or pharmacologic treatment before transplantation.

Impact of unfunded research in medicine, pathology, and surgery.

The impact of unfunded medical research (ie, research conducted with no visible means of support) has received scant attention. In this study, we counted research contributions from the 10 most-cited journals in the fields of internal medicine, pathology, and surgery. Ten consecutive articles, excluding case reports and review articles, for the years 1987, 1989, and 1991 were sampled from each of 10 journals for the three areas of medicine. Unfunded articles accounted for the majority of contributions (60% of pathology articles, 62% of internal medicine articles, and 74% of surgery articles). In 1987, funded research articles published received somewhat more citations (2,961) than unfunded research articles (2,368). Among articles supported by an NIH grant, the first author of the article was seldom the grant's principal investigator (38.6%, 26.9%, and 16.7% of funded articles by pathologists, internists, and surgeons, respectively). These results indicate that unfunded research plays a major role in medical research.

Research by pathologists not funded by external grant agencies: a success story.

The paradigm of pathology research as an endeavor among grant-funded principal investigators resulting in first-author publications is unsupported by quantitative examination of author profiles extracted from the scientific literature. Publications in six pathology journals (Modern Pathology, American Journal of Surgical Pathology, Human Pathology, Acta Cytologica, Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, and American Journal of Clinical Pathology) and three general science journals (Science, New England Journal of Medicine, and Proceedings of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) were reviewed. Twenty articles per journal from each of three years (1987, 1989, and 1991) were examined (a total of 520 articles). Of these, 295 articles were first-authored by a member of a department of pathology. Of the 295 articles first-authored by a member of a pathology department, 47 (16%) articles listed competitive grant support. Of the grant-supported articles, 20 articles listed NIH support, but only four had an NIH-supported principle investigator as the first author of the article. Unfunded research represented the vast majority (84%) of work produced by pathologists. A review of the ISI Citation Index showed that those articles written by funded pathologists averaged 8.7 (S.D. 7.8) citations per article, compared to 10.4 (S.D. 12.1) citations per article for unfunded pathologists. Results suggest that unfunded research accounts for the majority of pathology research activity as well as their resulting literature citations.