The internet is increasingly used to propagate medical education, debate, and even disinformation. Therefore, this primer aims to help acute care medical professionals, as well as the public. This is because we all need to be able to critically appraise digital products, appraise content producers, and reflect upon our own on-line presence. This article discusses the challenges and opportunities associated with online medical resources. We then review Free Open Access Medical Education (FOAMed) and the key tools used to assess the trustworthiness of on-line medical products. Specifically, after discussing the pros and cons of traditional academic quality metrics, we compare and contrast the Social Media Index, the ALiEM AIR score, the Revised METRIQ Score, and gestalt. We also discuss internet search engines, peer review, and the important message behind the seemingly tongue-in-cheek Kardashian Index. Hopefully, this primer bolsters basic digital literacy and helps trainees, practitioners, and the public locate useful and reliable on-line resources. Importantly, we highlight the continued importance of traditional academic medicine and primary source publications.
OBJECTIVES: Studies have suggested intrapulmonary shunts may contribute to hypoxemia in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with worse associated outcomes. We evaluated the presence of right-to-left (R-L) shunts in COVID-19 and non-COVID ARDS patients using a comprehensive hypoxemia workup for shunt etiology and associations with mortality. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort study. SETTING: Four tertiary hospitals in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. PATIENTS: Adult critically ill, mechanically ventilated, ICU patients admitted with COVID-19 or non-COVID (November 16, 2020, to September 1, 2021). INTERVENTIONS: Agitated-saline bubble studies with transthoracic echocardiography/transcranial Doppler ± transesophageal echocardiography assessed for R-L shunts presence. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomes were shunt frequency and association with hospital mortality. Logistic regression analysis was used for adjustment. The study enrolled 226 patients (182 COVID-19 vs 42 non-COVID). Median age was 58 years (interquartile range [IQR], 47–67 yr) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores of 30 (IQR, 21–36). In COVID-19 patients, the frequency of R-L shunt was 31 of 182 COVID patients (17.0%) versus 10 of 44 non-COVID patients (22.7%), with no difference detected in shunt rates (risk difference [RD], –5.7%; 95% CI, –18.4 to 7.0; p = 0.38). In the COVID-19 group, hospital mortality was higher for those with R-L shunt compared with those without (54.8% vs 35.8%; RD, 19.0%; 95% CI, 0.1–37.9; p = 0.05). This did not persist at 90-day mortality nor after adjustment with regression. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of increased R-L shunt rates in COVID-19 compared with non-COVID controls. R-L shunt was associated with increased in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 patients, but this did not persist at 90-day mortality or after adjusting using logistic regression.
Importance: Studies have suggested intra-pulmonary shunts may contribute to hypoxemia in COVID-19 ARDS and may be associated with worse outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the presence of right-to-left (R-L) shunts in COVID-19 and non-COVID ARDS patients using a comprehensive hypoxemia work-up for shunt etiology and associations with mortality. Design, Setting, Participants: We conducted a multi-centre (4 Canadian hospitals), prospective, observational cohort study of adult critically ill, mechanically ventilated, ICU patients admitted for ARDS from both COVID-19 or non-COVID (November 16, 2020-September 1, 2021). Intervention: Contrast-enhanced agitated-saline bubble studies with transthoracic echocardiography/transcranial Doppler (TTE/TCD) ± transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) assessed for the presence of R-L shunts. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were shunt incidence and association with hospital mortality. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine association of shunt presence/absence with covariables. Results: The study enrolled 226 patients (182 COVID-19 vs. 42 non-COVID). Median age was 58 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 47-67) and APACHE II scores of 30 (IQR: 21-36). In COVID-19 patients, the incidence of R-L shunt was 31/182 patients (17.0%; intra-pulmonary: 61.3%; intra-cardiac: 38.7%) versus 10/44 (22.7%) non-COVID patients. No evidence of difference was detected between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 shunt rates (risk difference [RD]: -5.7%, 95% CI: -18.4-7.0, p=0.38). In the COVID-19 group, hospital mortality was higher for those with R-L shunt compared to those without (54.8% vs 35.8%, RD: 19.0%, 95% CI 0.1-37.9, p=0.05). But this did not persist at 90-day mortality, nor after regression adjustments for age and illness severity. Conclusions: There was no evidence of increased R-L shunt rates in COVID-19 compared to non-COVID controls. Right-to-left shunt was associated with increased in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 patients, but this did not persist at 90-day mortality or after adjusting using logistic regression.
BackgroundBeginning with the guidance of central line insertion, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has evolved into a more inclusive skill set to aid in the examination and management of the acutely ill patient. Published evidence, including original literature and consensus recommendations support an array of applications in the multi-disciplinary arena of acute care medicine. In parallel, we have seen multiple professional societies’ call for more POCUS training in residency. While POCUS has been received with enthusiasm in acute care medicine, there are a number of challenges to ensuring trainees can competently perform POCUS in the acute care environment. There is inconsistent evidence to support optimum practices in curriculum design, implementation, assessment, and evaluation. To help explore this gap, we are conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence regarding POCUS curricula.MethodsWe will search electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Ovid ERIC, Science Citation Index, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index. Further, we will search the ClinicalTrials.gov register, hand search key proceedings and check references from relevant systematic reviews. Title, abstract and full text screening for inclusion of eligible papers will be performed in duplicate, in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Included publications will be evaluated for internal validity using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) scale for educational studies. Data abstraction will be conducted using standardized forms with focus on learner population, number of participants, setting, POCUS application, methods of instruction, duration of intervention, methods of assessment, and program evaluation. Further to this, emphasis will be placed on validity arguments of assessment tools using Kane’s framework. Primary analysis will be qualitative in nature. When possible, homogenous studies will be pooled for quantitative meta-analysis.DiscussionOur systematic review will summarize the current evidence base for POCUS curriculum implementation, evaluation and assessment validity for acute care applications. We anticipate that our review will fill a critical knowledge gap, providing a sound platform for future evidence-based curriculum development.Systematic Review RegistrationOur systematic review was registered with the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) on September 19, 2018 with registration number: CRD42018105973.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.