Objective
Management of peripheral nerve injuries requires physicians to rely on qualitative measures from patient history, electromyography, and physical exam. Determining a successful nerve repair can take months to years for proximal injuries, and the resulting delays in clinical decision‐making can lead to a negative impact on patient outcomes. Early identification of a failed nerve repair could prevent permanent muscle atrophy and loss of function. This study aims to test the feasibility of performing diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) to evaluate injury and recovery following repair of wrist trauma. We hypothesize that DTI provides a noninvasive and reliable assessment of regeneration, which may improve clinical decision‐making and alter the clinical course of surgical interventions.
Methods
Clinical and MRI measurements from subjects with traumatic peripheral nerve injury, carpal tunnel syndrome, and healthy control subjects were compared to evaluate the relationship between DTI metrics and injury severity.
Results
Fractional anisotropy from DTI was sensitive to differences between damaged and healthy nerves, damaged and compressed nerves, and injured and healthy contralateral nerves. Longitudinal measurements in two injury subjects also related to clinical outcomes. Implications of other diffusion measures are also discussed.
Interpretation
DTI is a sensitive tool for wrist nerve injuries and can be utilized for monitoring nerve recovery. Across three subjects with nerve injuries, this study has shown how DTI can detect abnormalities between injured and healthy nerves, measure recovery, and determine if re‐operation was successful. Additional comparisons to carpal tunnel syndrome and healthy nerves show that DTI is sensitive to the degree of impairment.
Introduction: The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score is one of the few standardized metrics used to objectively review applicants for residency. In February 2020 the USMLE program announced that the numerical Step 1 scoring would be changed to a binary (Pass/Fail) system. In this study we sought to characterize how this change in score reporting will impact the application review process for emergency medicine (EM) program directors (PD).
Methods: In March 2020 we electronically distributed a validated anonymous survey to EM PDs at 236 US EM residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.
Results: Of 236 EM PDs, 121 responded (51.3% response rate). Overall, 72.7% believed binary Step 1 scoring would make the process of objectively comparing applicants more difficult. A minority (19.8%) believed it was a good idea, and 33.1% felt it would improve medical student well-being. The majority (88.4%) reported that they will increase their emphasis on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) for resident selection, and 85% plan to require Step 2 CK scores at application submission time.
Conclusion: Our study suggests most EM PDs disapprove of the new Step 1 scoring. As more objective data is peeled away from the residency application, EM PDs will be left to rely more heavily on the few remaining measures, including Step 2 CK and standardized letters of evaluation. Further changes are needed to promote equity and improve the overall quality of the application process for students and PDs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.