Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gibbons, R. D.
Right arrow Articles by Pitluck, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gibbons, R. D.
Right arrow Articles by Pitluck, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Biostatistics 4:207-222 (2003)
© 2003 Oxford University Press

Waiting for organ transplantation: results of an analysis by an Institute of Medicine Committee

Robert D. Gibbons, Naihua Duan, David Meltzer, Andrew Pope, Edward D. Penhoet, Nancy N. Dubler, Charles Francis, Barbara Gill, Eva Guinan, Maureen Henderson, Suzanne T. Ildstad, Patricia A. King, Manuel Martinez-Maldonado, George E. Mclain, Joseph Murray, Dorothy Nelkin, Mitchell W. Spellman and Sarah Pitluck

Center for Health Statistics, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1601 W. Taylor, Chicago, IL 60612, USA

One of the most visible and contentious issues regarding the fairness of the original system of organ procurement and allocation is the argument that it resulted in great disparities in the total amount of time a patient waited for an organ (i.e. the time from registration at a transplantation center to transplant), depending on where he or she lived. In an attempt to resolve this debate, Congress charged the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine to perform an independent study of the original system and proposed rule changes. In an analysis of approximately 68 000 transplant waiting list records, the committee developed several conclusions and recommendations largely specific to liver transplantation policies. The purpose of this paper is to describe both the results of the study and the statistical foundations of the mixed-effects multinomial logistic regression model that led to the committee's conclusions.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.