Explore the vast range of titles available.

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is a common precursor state for blood cancers that most frequently occurs due to mutations in the DNA‐methylation modifying enzymes DNMT3A or TET2. We used DNA‐methylation array and whole‐genome sequencing data from four cohorts together comprising 5522 persons to study the association between CHIP, epigenetic clocks, and health outcomes. CHIP was strongly associated with epigenetic age acceleration, defined as the residual after regressing epigenetic clock age on chronological age, in several clocks, ranging from 1.31 years (GrimAge, p < 8.6 × 10−7) to 3.08 years (EEAA, p < 3.7 × 10−18). Mutations in most CHIP genes except DNA‐damage response genes were associated with increases in several measures of age acceleration. CHIP carriers with mutations in multiple genes had the largest increases in age acceleration and decrease in estimated telomere length. Finally, we found that ~40% of CHIP carriers had acceleration >0 in both Hannum and GrimAge (referred to as AgeAccelHG+). This group was at high risk of all‐cause mortality (hazard ratio 2.90, p < 4.1 × 10−8) and coronary heart disease (CHD) (hazard ratio 3.24, p < 9.3 × 10−6) compared to those who were CHIP−/AgeAccelHG−. In contrast, the other ~60% of CHIP carriers who were AgeAccelHG− were not at increased risk of these outcomes. In summary, CHIP is strongly linked to age acceleration in multiple clocks, and the combination of CHIP and epigenetic aging may be used to identify a population at high risk for adverse outcomes and who may be a target for clinical interventions. Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and epigenetic age acceleration are the two important aging phenomenon associated with adverse clinical outcomes. We found that mutations in most CHIP genes were associated with increased age acceleration in multiple epigenetic clocks. Individuals with CHIP and age acceleration had a greatly increased risk of mortality and coronary heart disease compared to individuals with only CHIP or age acceleration.

To explore mortality outcome usage in Cochrane systematic reviews and Core Outcome Sets for research. Cochrane PICO searches identified Cochrane reviews (published January 2015-March 2021) including mortality outcomes. These outcomes were categorized according to terminology used: all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, infant mortality, maternal mortality, survival. Mortality outcomes in Core Outcome Sets (published until 2019 on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database) were also extracted and categorized. In total, 2454 mortality outcomes were reported in 49% (1978/3999) of Cochrane reviews published January 2015-March 2021: all-cause (37%), infant (23%), maternal (11%), survival (10%), cause-specific (9%). Due to reviews not specifying mortality outcome type or including studies reporting no data, 11% (273/2208) remained uncategorized. Infant mortality and maternal mortality were frequently used together in reviews reporting two mortality outcomes. In total, 226 mortality outcomes were reported in 37% (165/449) of Core Outcome Sets: all-cause (48%), survival (27%), cause-specific (12%), infant (9%), maternal (4%). Mortality measurement timing varied. Mortality outcome usage varies in Cochrane reviews and Core Outcome Sets. This is problematic for evidence-based decision-making. Greater standardization is necessary for effective utilization of health research.

Background: Game-based approaches, or gamification, are popular learning strategies in medical education for health care providers and patients alike. Gamification has taken the form of serious educational games and simulations to enable learners to rehearse skills and knowledge in a safe environment. Dermatology learners in particular may benefit from gamification methods, given the visual and procedural nature of the field. Objective: This narrative review surveys current applications of gamification within general medical training, in the education of dermatology students, and in dermatology patient outreach. Methods: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate to access and review relevant medical education- and dermatology-related gamification studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Two independent researchers with education and experience in dermatology screened publications to select studies featuring a diversity of gamification approaches and study subjects for in-depth examination. Results: A total of 6 general medical education–related and 7 dermatology-specific gamification studies were selected. Gamification generally increased motivation and engagement, improved reinforcement of learning objectives, and contributed to more enjoyable and positive educational experiences compared to traditional modes of instruction. Enhancing examination scores, building confidence, and developing stronger team dynamics were additional benefits for medical trainees. Despite the abundance of gamification studies in general medical education, comparatively few instances were specific to dermatology learning, although large organizations such as the American Academy of Dermatology have begun to implement these strategies nationally. Gamification may also a provide promising alternative means of diversifying patient education and outreach methods, especially for self-identification of malignant melanoma. Conclusions: Serious games and simulations in general medical education have successfully increased learner motivation, enjoyment, and performance. In limited preliminary studies, gamified approaches to dermatology-specific medical education enhanced diagnostic accuracy and interest in the field. Game-based interventions in patient-focused educational pilot studies surrounding melanoma detection demonstrated similar efficacy and knowledge benefits. However, small study participant numbers and large variability in outcome measures may indicate decreased generalizability of findings regarding the current impact of gamification approaches, and further investigation in this area is warranted. Additionally, some relevant studies may have been omitted by the simplified literature search strategy of this narrative review. This could be expanded upon in a secondary systematic review of gamified educational platforms.

Google Trends is a powerful online database and analytics tool of popular Google search queries over time and has the potential to inform medical practice and priorities. This review aimed to survey Google Trends literature in dermatology and elucidate its current roles and relationships with the field. A literature search was performed using PubMed to access and review relevant dermatology-related Google Trends studies published within the last 5 years. Current research utilizing Google Trends data provides insight related to skin cancer, pruritus, cosmetic procedures, and COVID-19. We also found that dermatology is presently the highest-searched medical specialty-among 15 medical and surgical specialties as well as general practitioners. Google searches related to dermatology demonstrate a seasonal nature for various skin conditions and sun-related topics, depending on a region's inherent climate and hemi-sphere. In addition, celebrity social media and other viral posts have been found to potentiate Google searches about dermatology and drive public interest. A limited number of relevant studies may have been omitted by the simplified search strategy of this study, as well as by restriction to English language articles and articles indexed in the PubMed database. This could be expanded upon in a secondary systematic review. Future re-search is warranted to better understand how Google Trends can be utilized to improve the quality of clinic visits, drive public health campaigns, and detect disease clusters in real time.

TikTok is a social media platform that can educate users about dermatology, but this longitudinal analysis of skin of color–related TikTok hashtags from 2021 to 2022 suggests that nondermatologist influencers continue to dominate content creation, highlighting the need for more participation from board-certified dermatologists to actively counter misinformation and address potential disparities in skin-of-color health care.

Emoticons and emojis have become staple additions to modern-day communication. These graphical icons are now embedded in daily society through the various forms of popular social media and through users' personal electronic conversations. With ever-increasing use and inclusivity, exploration of the possible health care and dermatology applications of these tools is imperative. The goal of this narrative review was to provide and evaluate an up-to-date literature survey examining the utility of emoticons and emojis in medicine. Special attention was paid to their existing and potential uses in the field of dermatology, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. A PubMed search of peer-reviewed publications was performed in mid-2021 to collect articles with emoticon or emoji keywords in combination with other health care-relevant or dermatology-relevant keywords. Screening of publications and described studies was performed by the authors with education and research experience in health care, dermatology, social media, and electronic communication trends. Selected articles were grouped based on common subjects for qualitative analysis and presentation for in-depth discussion. From this extensive search, researchers were able to identify a wide variety of publications detailing the use of emoticons and emojis in general health care, pediatric health care, public health, and dermatology. Key subject areas that emerged from the investigation included the ability of emoticons and emojis to improve communication within pediatric health care, enhance mood and psychological assessment or mental health screening in adults, develop interventions to improve patient medication adherence, complement novel means of public health and COVID-19 surveillance, and bolster dermatology-specific applications. This review illuminated the repurposing of emojis and emoticons for a myriad of advantageous functions in health care and public health, with applications studied in many populations and situations. Dermatology-specific uses were relatively sparse in the literature, highlighting potential opportunities for growth in future studies and practices. The importance of diversity and inclusivity has extended to emojis, with the recent introduction of skin color customization and new emojis better representing the comprehensive spectrum of users' experiences. A continuously evolving and technology-driven population creates a unique niche for emoticons and emojis to ease worldwide communication and understanding, transcending the barriers of age, language, and background. We encourage future studies and innovations to better understand and expand their utility.

Online patient-oriented platforms such as PatientsLikeMe (PLM) offer a venue for individuals with various diagnoses to share experiences and build community, though they may not be representative of the larger patient population. This potentially limits generalizability and raises concerns about the spread of misinformation, emphasizing the need for informed use and health care provider engagement.

Background The prioritisation of updating published systematic reviews of interventions is vital to prevent research waste and ensure relevance to stakeholders. The consideration of health equity in reviews is also important to ensure interventions will not exacerbate the existing inequities of the disadvantaged if universally implemented. This study aimed to pilot a priority setting exercise based on systematic reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Library, to identify and prioritise reviews to be updated with a focus on health equity. Methods We conducted a priority setting exercise with a group of 13 international stakeholders. We identified Cochrane reviews of interventions that showed a reduction in mortality, had at least one Summary of Findings table and that focused on one of 42 conditions with a high global burden of disease from the 2019 WHO Global Burden of Disease report. This included 21 conditions used as indicators of success of the United Nations Universal Health Coverage in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals. Stakeholders prioritised reviews that were relevant to disadvantaged populations, or to characteristics of potential disadvantage within the general population. Results After searching for Cochrane reviews of interventions within 42 conditions, we identified 359 reviews that assessed mortality and included at least one Summary of Findings table. These pertained to 29 of the 42 conditions; 13 priority conditions had no reviews with the outcome mortality. Reducing the list to only reviews showing a clinically important reduction in mortality left 33 reviews. Stakeholders ranked these reviews in order of priority to be updated with a focus on health equity. Conclusions This project developed and implemented a methodology to set priorities for updating systematic reviews spanning multiple health topics with a health equity focus. It prioritised reviews that reduce overall mortality, are relevant to disadvantaged populations, and focus on conditions with a high global burden of disease. This approach to the prioritisation of systematic reviews of interventions that reduce mortality provides a template that can be extended to reducing morbidity, and the combination of mortality and morbidity as represented in Disability-Adjusted Life Years and Quality-Adjusted Life Years.

Background In cosmetic dermatology, lasers and lights treat a variety of hair and skin conditions, including some that disproportionately affect people of color. Aims Our systematic review aims to understand the representation of participants with skin phototypes 4–6 in cosmetic dermatologic trials studying laser and light devices. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using search terms “laser,” “light,” and multiple laser and light subtypes in the PubMed and Web of Science databases. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 1, 2010 and October 14, 2021 that studied laser or light devices for cosmetic dermatologic conditions were eligible for inclusion. Results Our systematic review included 461 RCTs representing 14 763 participants. Of 345 studies that reported skin phototype, 81.7% (n = 282) included participants of skin phototypes 4–6, but only 27.5% (n = 95) included participants of skin phototypes 5 or 6. This trend of excluding darker skin phototypes persisted when results were stratified by condition, laser of study, study location, journal type, and funding source. Conclusions Trials studying lasers and lights for the treatment of cosmetic dermatologic conditions need better representation of skin phototypes 5 and 6.

The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study aims to characterize the worldwide prevalence and morbidity of major diseases, while PatientsLikeMe (PLM) is an online community providing patient-generated insights into lived experiences; for dermatologic conditions, quantitative comparisons of GBD and PLM data revealed expected demographic differences but also notable correlations, highlighting their potential as complementary data sources elucidating unmet patient needs and priorities.