Objective Detection of delirium in hospitalised older adults is recommended in national and international guidelines. The 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT) is a short (<2 minutes) instrument for delirium detection that is used internationally as a standard tool in clinical practice. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, clinicaltrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from 2011 (year of 4AT release on the website www.the4AT.com) until 21 December 2019. Inclusion criteria were: older adults (≥65 years); diagnostic accuracy study of the 4AT index test when compared to delirium reference standard (standard diagnostic criteria or validated tool). Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated from a bivariate random effects model. Results Seventeen studies (3,702 observations) were included. Settings were acute medicine, surgery, a care home and the emergency department. Three studies assessed performance of the 4AT in stroke. The overall prevalence of delirium was 24.2% (95% CI 17.8–32.1%; range 10.5–61.9%). The pooled sensitivity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.80–0.93) and the pooled specificity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.82–0.92). Excluding the stroke studies, the pooled sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.77–0.92) and the pooled specificity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.83–0.93). The methodological quality of studies varied but was moderate to good overall. Conclusions The 4AT shows good diagnostic test accuracy for delirium in the 17 available studies. These findings support its use in routine clinical practice in delirium detection. PROSPERO Registration number CRD42019133702.

Viral conjunctivitis caused by adenovirus is the most common infectious conjunctivitis. Adenoviruses are highly contagious pathogens. The modes of transmission are mainly through hand to eye contact, ocular secretions, respiratory droplets, and contact with ophthalmic care providers and their medical instruments. The most frequent manifestation of ocular adenoviral infection is epidemic keratoconjunctivitis, followed by pharyngoconjunctival fever. Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis is also the most severe form and presents with watery discharge, hyperemia, cheosis, and ipsilateral lymphadenopathy. Pharyngoconjunctival fever is characterized by abrupt onset of high fever, pharyngitis, bilateral conjunctivitis, and periauricular lymph node enlargement. Isolated follicular conjunctivitis without corneal or systemic involvement also occurs. The rate of clinical accuracy in diagnosing viral conjunctivitis is less than 50%. Rapid diagnostic tests now being used decrease unnecessary antibiotic use. Treatment for viral conjunctivitis is mostly supportive. The majority of cases are self-limited, and no treatment is necessary in uncomplicated cases.

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01313169.

As part of an international faculty development conference in February 2010, a working group of medical educators and physicians discussed the changing role of instructional technologies and made recommendations for supporting faculty in using these technologies in medical education. The resulting discussion highlighted ways technology is transforming the entire process of medical education and identified several converging trends that have implications for how medical educators might prepare for the next decade. These trends include the explosion of new information; all information, including both health knowledge and medical records, becoming digital; a new generation of learners; the emergence of new instructional technologies; and the accelerating rate of change, especially related to technology. The working group developed five recommendations that academic health leaders and policy makers may use as a starting point for dealing with the instructional technology challenges facing medical education over the next decade. These recommendations are (1) using technology to provide/support experiences for learners that are not otherwise possible-not as a replacement for, but as a supplement to, face-to-face experiences, (2) focusing on fundamental principles of teaching and learning rather than learning specific technologies in isolation, (3) allocating a variety of resources to support the appropriate use of instructional technologies, (4) supporting faculty members as they adopt new technologies, and (5) providing funding and leadership to enhance electronic infrastructure to facilitate sharing of resources and instructional ideas.