Explore the vast range of titles available.

Osteoporosis Choice, an encounter decision aid, can engage patients and clinicians in shared decision making about osteoporosis treatment. Its effectiveness compared to the routine provision to clinicians of the patient's estimated risk of fracture using the FRAX calculator is unknown. Patient-level, randomized, three-arm trial enrolling women over 50 with osteopenia or osteoporosis eligible for treatment with bisphosphonates, where the use of Osteoporosis Choice was compared to FRAX only and to usual care to determine impact on patient knowledge, decisional conflict, involvement in the decision-making process, decision to start and adherence to bisphosphonates. We enrolled 79 women in the three arms. Because FRAX estimation alone and usual care produced similar results, we grouped them for analysis. Compared to these, use of Osteoporosis Choice increased patient knowledge (median score 6 vs. 4, p = .01), improved understanding of fracture risk and risk reduction with bisphosphonates (p = .01 and p<.0001, respectively), had no effect on decision conflict, and increased patient engagement in the decision making process (OPTION scores 57% vs. 43%, p = .001). Encounters with the decision aid were 0.8 minutes longer (range: 33 minutes shorter to 3.0 minutes longer). There were twice as many patients receiving and filling prescriptions in the decision aid arm (83% vs. 40%, p = .07); medication adherence at 6 months was no different across arms. Supporting both patients and clinicians during the clinical encounter with the Osteoporosis Choice decision aid efficiently improves treatment decision making when compared to usual care with or without clinical decision support with FRAX results. clinical trials.gov NCT00949611.

This paper assesses the preferred treatment patterns for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and examine trends in anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) use for ROP. Methods: A retrospective survey consisting of 14 questions was distributed to paediatric ophthalmology interest groups internationally. Main outcome measures included treatment patterns, proportion of anti-VEGF use in different stages of ROP; and comparison of first-line treatments as well as repeat anti-VEGF treatments. Results: Fifty-four ophthalmologists from 11 different countries responded to the survey. The number of respondents per question, except one, ranged between 50–54. Per annum, there was an average number of 394 infants screened by each respondent. Anti-VEGF was the preferred treatment method for aggressive (A)-ROP (64.1%), Type 1 ROP in zone 1 (71.7%), and Type 1 ROP in posterior zone 2 (56.6%). The majority used laser as the first-line treatment of Type 1 ROP in anterior zone 2 (73.6%) and Type 1 ROP in zone 3 (79.2%). Laser was the preferred treatment modality utilised in infants requiring repeat treatment following anti-VEGF injection. The preferred anti-VEGF agent was bevacizumab administered at a dose of 0.625 mg. Conclusions: Anti-VEGF as first-line therapy has been increasing. Anti-VEGF appears to be the first-line treatment of choice for A-ROP, Type 1 ROP in zone 1 and posterior zone 2 and laser for Type 1 ROP in anterior zone 2 and zone 3.

New legislation in several states requiring breast density notification in all mammogram reports has increased awareness of breast density. Estimates indicate that up to 50% of women undergoing mammography will have high breast density; thus, with increased attention and high prevalence of increased breast density, it is crucial that primary care clinicians understand the implications of dense breasts and are able to provide appropriate counseling. This review provides an overview of breast density, specifically by defining breast density, exploring the association between breast density and breast cancer risk, both from masking and as an independent risk factor, and reviewing supplemental screening options as part of a larger framework for counseling patients with dense breasts.

Background Both research and clinical medicine requires similar attributes of efficiency, diligence and effective teamwork. Furthermore, residents must succeed at scholarship and patient care to be competitive for fellowship training. It is unknown whether research productivity among residents is related to broad measures of clinical achievement. Our goal was to examine associations between the quantity of internal medicine residents’ publications and validated measures of their knowledge, skills and multi-source evaluations of performance. Methods This was a longitudinal study of 308 residents graduating from Mayo Clinic from 2006 to 2012. We identified peer-reviewed articles in Ovid MEDLINE between July of each resident’s match year and the end of their graduation. Outcomes included American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) certification examination scores, mini clinical examination (mini-CEX) scores, and validated assessments of clinical performance by resident-peers, faculty and non-physicians. Performance assessments were averaged to form an overall score ranging from 1 to 5. Associations between quantity of resident publications – and ABIM, mini-CEX and performance assessment scores – were determined using multivariate linear regression. Results The residents published 642 papers, of which 443 (69.0 %) were research papers, 198 (30.8 %) were case reports, and 380 (59.2 %) were first-authored. On adjusted analysis, multi-source clinical performance evaluations were significantly associated (beta; 99 % CI; p -value) with the numbers of research articles (0.012; 0.001–0.024; 0.007), and overall publications (0.012; 0.002–0.022; 0.002). Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate that scholarly productivity based on journal publication is associated with clinical performance during residency training. Our findings suggest that residents who invest substantial efforts in research are not compromised in their abilities to learn medicine and care for patients.

ABSTRACT Background Studies reveal that 44.5 % of abstracts presented at national meetings are subsequently published in indexed journals, with lower rates for abstracts of medical education scholarship. Objective We sought to determine whether the quality of medical education abstracts is associated with subsequent publication in indexed journals, and to compare the quality of medical education abstracts presented as scientific abstracts versus innovations in medical education (IME). Design Retrospective cohort study. Participants Medical education abstracts presented at the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) 2009 annual meeting. Main Measures Publication rates were measured using database searches for full-text publications through December 2013. Quality was assessed using the validated Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Key Results Overall, 64 (44 %) medical education abstracts presented at the 2009 SGIM annual meeting were subsequently published in indexed medical journals. The MERSQI demonstrated good inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation range, 0.77–1.00) for grading the quality of medical education abstracts. MERSQI scores were higher for published versus unpublished abstracts (9.59 vs. 8.81, p  = 0.03). Abstracts with a MERSQI score of 10 or greater were more likely to be published (OR 3.18, 95 % CI 1.47–6.89, p  = 0.003). ). MERSQI scores were higher for scientific versus IME abstracts (9.88 vs. 8.31, p  < 0.001). Publication rates were higher for scientific abstracts (42 [66 %] vs. 37 [46 %], p  = 0.02) and oral presentations (15 [23 %] vs. 6 [8 %], p  = 0.01). Conclusions The publication rate of medical education abstracts presented at the 2009 SGIM annual meeting was similar to reported publication rates for biomedical research abstracts, but higher than publication rates reported for medical education abstracts. MERSQI scores were associated with higher abstract publication rates, suggesting that attention to measures of quality—such as sampling, instrument validity, and data analysis—may improve the likelihood that medical education abstracts will be published.

To determine continuing medical education (CME) course participants' use of social media (SM) and their attitudes about the value of SM for enhancing CME education and to examine associations between participants' characteristics and attitudes toward SM. We conducted a cross-sectional survey and validation study of 539 participants at a Mayo Clinic Internal Medicine CME course in November 2011. The Social Media Use and Perception Instrument (SMUPI) consisted of 10 items (5-point Likert scales) and categorical response options. The main outcome measures were psychometric characteristics of the SMUPI scale, course participants' use of SM, and their attitudes regarding the importance of SM for enhancing CME. Of 539 CME course participants, 327 (61%) responded to the SMUPI survey. Most respondents (291 [89%]) reported using SM, with the most common types being YouTube (189 of the 327 participants [58%]) and Facebook (163 of 327 [50%]). Factor analysis revealed a 2-dimensional assessment of course participants' attitudes. Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach α) was excellent for factor 1 (0.94), factor 2 (0.89), and overall (0.94). The CME course participants' favorable attitudes toward SM were associated with younger age (20-29 years, mean score 3.13; 30-39 years, 3.40; 40-49 years, 3.39; 50-59 years, 3.18; 60-69 years, 2.93; and ≥70 years, 2.92; P=.02), using SM frequently (never, mean score 2.49; less than once monthly, 2.75; once monthly, 3.21; weekly, 3.31; and daily, 3.81; P<.0001), and professional degree (PhD, mean score 3.00; MD, 3.05; DO, 3.35; PA, 3.42; and NP, 3.50; P=.01). We describe the first validated measure of CME course participants' use of and attitudes toward SM. Our results suggest that CME course directors should guide SM strategies toward more youthful, technology-savvy CME participants and that SM will become increasingly worthwhile in CME as younger learners continue to enter the profession.

The 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening update recommended against routine screening mammography for women aged 40-49; confusion and release of conflicting guidelines followed. We examined the impact of the USPSTF update on population-level screening mammography rates in women ages 40-49. We conducted a retrospective, interrupted time-series analysis using a nationally representative, privately-insured population from 1/1/2006-12/31/2011. Women ages 40-64 enrolled for ≥ 1 month were included. The primary outcome was receipt of screening mammography, identified using administrative claims-based algorithms. Time-series regression models were estimated to determine the effect of the guideline change on screening mammography rates. 5.5 million women ages 40-64 were included. A 1.8 per 1,000 women (p = 0.003) decrease in monthly screening mammography rates for 40-49 year-old women was observed two months following the guideline change; no initial effect was seen for 50-64 year-old women. However, two years following the guideline change, a slight increase in screening mammography rates above expected was observed in both age groups. We detected a modest initial drop in screening mammography rates in women ages 40-49 immediately after the 2009 USPSTF guideline followed by an increase in screening rates. Unfavorable public reactions and release of conflicting statements may have tempered the initial impact. Renewal of the screening debate may have brought mammography to the forefront of women's minds, contributing to the observed increase in mammography rates two years after the guideline change. This pattern is unlikely to reflect informed choice and underscores the need for improved translation of evidence-based care and guidelines into practice.

BackgroundAbstracts accepted at scientific meetings are often not subsequently published. Data on publication rates are largely from subspecialty and surgical studies.ObjectiveThe aims of this study were to 1) determine publication rates of abstracts presented at a general internal medicine meeting; 2) describe research activity among academic general internists; 3) identify factors associated with publication and with the impact factor of the journal of publication; and 4) evaluate for publication bias.DesignRetrospective cohort study.ParticipantsAll scientific abstracts presented at the Society of General Internal Medicine 2009 Annual Meeting.Main MeasuresPublication rates were determined by searching for full-text publications in MEDLINE. Data were abstracted regarding authors’ institution, research topic category, number of study sites, sample size, study design, statistical significance (p value and confidence interval) in abstract and publication, journal of publication, publication date, and journal impact factor.Key ResultsOf the 578 abstracts analyzed, 274 (47.4%) were subsequently published as a full article in a peer-reviewed journal indexed in MEDLINE. In a multivariable model adjusting for institution site, research topic, number of study sites, study design, sample size, and abstract results, publication rates for academic general internists were highest in the areas of medical education (52.5%, OR 5.05, 95% CI 1.57–17.25, reference group Veterans Affairs (VA)-based research, publication rate 36.7%), mental health/substance use (67.7%, OR 4.16, 95% CI 1.39–13.06), and aging/geriatrics/end of life (65.7%, OR 3.31, 95% CI 1.15–9.94, p = 0.01 across topics). Publication rates were higher for multicenter studies than single-institution studies (52.4% vs. 40.4%, OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.10–2.52, p = 0.04 across categories). Randomized controlled trials had higher publication rates than other study designs (66.7% vs. 45.9%, OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.30–5.94, p = 0.03 across study designs). Studies with positive results did not predict higher publication rates than negative studies (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.6–1.31, p = 0.21).ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that 47.4% of abstracts presented at a general internal medicine national conference were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal indexed in MEDLINE.

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVES Evaluating the patient impact of health professions education is a societal priority with many challenges. Researchers would benefit from a summary of topics studied and potential methodological problems. We sought to summarize key information on patient outcomes identified in a comprehensive systematic review of simulation-based instruction. DATA SOURCES Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and bibliographies of previous reviews through May 2011. STUDY ELIGIBILITY Original research in any language measuring the direct effects on patients of simulation-based instruction for health professionals, in comparison with no intervention or other instruction. APPRAISAL and SYNTHESIS Two reviewers independently abstracted information on learners, topics, study quality including unit of analysis, and validity evidence. We pooled outcomes using random effects. RESULTS From 10,903 articles screened, we identified 50 studies reporting patient outcomes for at least 3,221 trainees and 16,742 patients. Clinical topics included airway management (14 studies), gastrointestinal endoscopy (12), and central venous catheter insertion (8). There were 31 studies involving postgraduate physicians and seven studies each involving practicing physicians, nurses, and emergency medicine technicians. Fourteen studies (28 %) used an appropriate unit of analysis. Measurement validity was supported in seven studies reporting content evidence, three reporting internal structure, and three reporting relations with other variables. The pooled Hedges’ g effect size for 33 comparisons with no intervention was 0.47 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.31–0.63); and for nine comparisons with non-simulation instruction, it was 0.36 (95 % CI, −0.06 to 0.78). LIMITATIONS Focused field in education; high inconsistency (I 2  > 50 % in most analyses). CONCLUSIONS Simulation-based education was associated with small-moderate patient benefits in comparison with no intervention and non-simulation instruction, although the latter did not reach statistical significance. Unit of analysis errors were common, and validity evidence was infrequently reported.

Background There is little evidence regarding the comparative quality of abstracts and articles in medical education research. The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI), which was developed to evaluate the quality of reporting in medical education, has strong validity evidence for content, internal structure, and relationships to other variables. We used the MERSQI to compare the quality of reporting for conference abstracts, journal abstracts, and published articles. Methods This is a retrospective study of all 46 medical education research abstracts submitted to the Society of General Internal Medicine 2009 Annual Meeting that were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal. We compared MERSQI scores of the abstracts with scores for their corresponding published journal abstracts and articles. Comparisons were performed using the signed rank test. Results Overall MERSQI scores increased significantly for published articles compared with conference abstracts (11.33 vs 9.67; P  < .001) and journal abstracts (11.33 vs 9.96; P  < .001). Regarding MERSQI subscales, published articles had higher MERSQI scores than conference abstracts in the domains of sampling (1.59 vs 1.34; P  = .006), data analysis (3.00 vs 2.43; P  < .001), and validity of evaluation instrument (1.04 vs 0.28; P  < .001). Published articles also had higher MERSQI scores than journal abstracts in the domains of data analysis (3.00 vs 2.70; P  = .004) and validity of evaluation instrument (1.04 vs 0.26; P  < .001). Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the quality of medical education abstracts and journal articles using the MERSQI. Overall, the quality of articles was greater than that of abstracts. However, there were no significant differences between abstracts and articles for the domains of study design and outcomes, which indicates that these MERSQI elements may be applicable to abstracts. Findings also suggest that abstract quality is generally preserved from original presentation to publication.