Advertisement

Left digit bias in selection and acceptance of deceased donor organs

      Highlights

      • There was a decrease in the probability of any organ placement for donors at age 70 compared to 69.
      • After a donor's 70th birthday there was a decrease in number of organs placed.
      • These findings represent a left digit bias in the evaluation of donor organs that restricts the supply of available organs.

      Abstract

      Background

      Organs suitable for donation are a scarce resource and maximizing the use of available organs is a priority. We aimed to determine whether there is a supply restricting left digit bias in organs offered and accepted for donors entering a new decade of age.

      Methods

      Potential deceased organ donors (n = 105,387) who had any organs offered for transplantation from 2010 to 2019 Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data were analyzed. Donors were identified 1 year before and after a decade altering birthday.

      Results

      At age 70 there was a 5.4% decrease in the probability of any organ placement compared to 69 (95% CI 1.1–9.7). There was a decrease of 0.25 organs (95% CI 0.13–0.37) after age 70.

      Conclusions

      There was a significant left digit bias in the acceptance of any organs for transplantation at ages 60 and 70 as well as in the acceptance of a kidney at age 70.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The American Journal of Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Sokolova T.
        • Seenivasan S.
        • Thomas M.
        The left-digit bias: when and why are consumers penny wise and pound foolish?.
        J Mark Res. 2020; 57: 771-788https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243720932532
        • Olenski A.R.
        • Zimerman A.
        • Coussens S.
        • Jena A.B.
        Behavioral heuristics in coronary-artery bypass graft surgery.
        N Engl J Med. 2020; 382: 778-779https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1911289
        • Tversky A.
        • Kahneman D.
        Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases.
        Science. 1974; 185: 1124-1131https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
        • Schnier K.E.
        • Cox J.C.
        • McIntyre C.
        • Ruhil R.
        • Sadiraj V.
        • Turgeon N.
        Transplantation at the nexus of behavioral economics and health care delivery.
        Am J Transplant. 2013; 13: 31-35https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04343.x
        • Volk M.L.
        • Roney M.
        • Merion R.M.
        Systematic bias in surgeons' predictions of the donor-specific risk of liver transplant graft failure.
        Liver Transplant. 2013; 19: 987-990https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.23683
        • Husain S.A.
        • King K.L.
        • Mohan S.
        Left-digit bias and deceased donor kidney utilization.
        Clin Transplant. 2021; 35e14284https://doi.org/10.1111/ctr.14284
        • Antonacci A.C.
        • Dechario S.P.
        • Antonacci C.
        • et al.
        Cognitive bias impact on management of postoperative complications, medical error, and standard of care.
        J Surg Res. 2021; 258: 47-53https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.08.040
        • Gurich R.W.
        • Cizik A.M.
        • Punt S.E.
        • et al.
        Decision-making in orthopaedic oncology: does cognitive bias affect a virtual patient's choice between limb salvage and amputation?.
        Clin Orthop. 2020; 478: 506-514https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000674
        • MacDermid E.
        • Young C.J.
        • Moug S.J.
        • Anderson R.G.
        • Shepherd H.L.
        Heuristics and bias in rectal surgery.
        Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017; 32: 1109-1115https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-017-2823-7
        • Balakrishnan K.
        • Arjmand E.M.
        The impact of cognitive and implicit bias on patient safety and quality.
        Otolaryngol Clin. 2019; 52: 35-46https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2018.08.016
        • Doherty T.S.
        • Carroll A.E.
        Believing in overcoming cognitive biases.
        AMA J Ethics. 2020; 22: 773-778https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2020.773
      1. Sokolova T, Thomas M. Focusing on the Left Digit: An Encoding or an Estimation Bias? 3.

      2. Shlain AS. More than a Penny's Worth: Left-Digit Bias and Firm Pricing.67.

        • Dalmacy D.M.
        • Diaz A.
        • Hyer M.
        • Pawlik T.M.
        Age-based left-digit bias in the management of acute cholecystitis.
        J Gastrointest Surg. 2021; (Published online June 25)https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-021-05065-3
      3. Request Data - OPTN. Accessed September 28, 2020..https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/request-data/.

        • Von Elm E.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Egger M.
        • Pocock S.J.
        • Gøtzsche P.C.
        • Vandenbroucke J.P.
        The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.
        UroToday Int J. 2009; 2https://doi.org/10.4038/jccpsl.v13i2.2965
        • Abouna G.M.
        Organ shortage crisis: problems and possible solutions.
        Transplant Proc. 2008; 40: 34-38https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2007.11.067
      4. OPTN/UNOS Board approves updated liver distribution system - OPTN. 2020
        • Croskerry P.
        • Singhal G.
        • Mamede S.
        Cognitive debiasing 1: origins of bias and theory of debiasing.
        BMJ Qual Saf. 2013; 22: ii58-ii64https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001712
        • Elstein A.S.
        Heuristics and biases: selected errors in clinical reasoning.
        Acad Med. 1999; 74: 791-794
        • Bond W.F.
        • Deitrick L.M.
        • Arnold D.C.
        • et al.
        Using simulation to instruct emergency medicine residents in cognitive forcing strategies.
        Acad Med. 2004; 79: 438-446
        • Daniel M.
        • Carney M.
        • Khandelwal S.
        • et al.
        Cognitive debiasing strategies: a faculty development workshop for clinical teachers in emergency medicine.
        MedEdPORTAL J Teach Learn Resour. 2017; 1310646https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10646
        • Reilly J.B.
        • Ogdie A.R.
        • Von Feldt J.M.
        • Myers J.S.
        Teaching about how doctors think: a longitudinal curriculum in cognitive bias and diagnostic error for residents.
        BMJ Qual Saf. 2013; 22: 1044-1050https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001987
        • Croskerry P.
        • Singhal G.
        • Mamede S.
        Cognitive debiasing 2: impediments to and strategies for change.
        BMJ Qual Saf. 2013; 22: ii65-ii72https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001713
        • Sukhera J.
        • Watling C.
        A framework for integrating implicit bias recognition into health professions education.
        Acad Med. 2018; 93: 35-40https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001819
        • Croskerry P.
        The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them.
        Acad Med. 2003; 78: 775-780